Where a voluntary evaluation is made and the difference is calculated, the actual acquisition value shall not be confirmed.

The actual acquisition value of the relevant asset, which is the basis of calculating the transfer income tax amount, means the value acquired by the acquisitor at the time of transaction and paid as the price, which is the value objectively recognized by sales contract or other documentary evidence.

Article 24 of the Income Tax Act

2013Gudan1595 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

The United States of America

BB Director of the Tax Office

7 July 24, 201

August 28, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The Defendant’s imposition of the capital gains tax of 2009 against the Plaintiff on February 6, 2012 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

"A. On December 28, 2001, the Plaintiff acquired OO-type 250 O-type 1,104 square meters (hereinafter referred to as "the original land of this case") from NoCC on an O-type O-type 250 O-type 1,104 square meters (hereinafter referred to as "the original land of this case") in exchange for the right to lease the O-type 67-9 O-dong O-type 67-9 O-type O-type O-type O-type 250 O-type 841 square meters (hereinafter referred to as "the land of this case") that was divided from the original land of this case, after entering the acquisition value of the land of this case as an O-type O-type 250 O-type O-type 250 O-type O-type 841 square meters (hereinafter referred to as "the original land of this case"), and the Plaintiff filed a final return on May 28, 2010>

C. The Defendant considered the acquisition value of the instant land as the actual transaction value at the time of acquisition, on the ground that “it cannot be recognized as the actual transaction value at the time of acquisition of the instant land by the Plaintiff,” and calculated transfer margin on the basis thereof, and corrected and notified the Plaintiff on February 6, 2012, the transfer income tax of the Plaintiff for the year 2009 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On July 30, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an objection and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on December 26, 2012.

Facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1 through 5, Gap evidence 10, and Eul evidence 1.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff acquired the original land from Nowon to OO, the actual transaction price at the time of the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant land was equivalent to the above amount, the Defendant, as seen otherwise, made the instant disposition, and the Defendant’s disposition against the Plaintiff was unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) The real acquisition value of the relevant asset, which serves as the basis for calculating the amount of capital gains tax, refers to the value acquired by the purchaser at the time of the transaction and paid for the acquisition of the asset and objectively recognized by the sales contract or other evidentiary materials. Therefore, in the event that the transaction is an exchange, the market price appraisal of the object to be exchanged is conducted, accompanied by the procedure for settling the difference in the appraised value, etc., if the value of the object is a value exchange based on the objective monetary value of the object as a standard, the actual acquisition value may be verified, but if the difference is determined by an agreement between the parties without such process and simple exchange is made by the method of paying the difference, the actual acquisition value shall not be verified. The same applies to cases where the parties to the exchange contract arbitrarily evaluate and determine the value of the object to be exchanged and then calculate the difference (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du27592, Feb.

2) In light of the above legal principles, in the instant case where there is no transaction example or appraisal value with respect to the instant land, the Defendant deemed the amount converted to the acquisition value of the instant land as the acquisition value of the instant land and calculated the transfer margin based on the calculation of the transfer margin is lawful in view of the following circumstances that can look at the overall purport of the argument, even when each of the evidence presented and seen above, in light of the aforementioned legal principles.

① Since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the exchange between the Plaintiff and the TradeCC conducted a value exchange based on the objective value assessment of the subject matter of exchange, the said exchange constitutes a case where the actual acquisition value of the subject matter of exchange cannot be confirmed.

② Only the descriptions or images of Gap evidence 7, Gap evidence 8, and Gap evidence 9-1 through 9 are difficult to recognize that the objective monetary value of the right to lease of this case was equivalent to the OO won at the time of the exchange as asserted by the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to confirm the actual transaction value at the time of the acquisition of the original land of this case or the land of this case by the plaintiff.

3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s aforementioned assertion on a different premise is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as there is no reasonable ground.