The original disposition on the basis of the conversion value as the actual transaction value has not been verified.

The actual transaction price at the time of the acquisition of the building of this case is insufficient to recognize the actual transaction price at the time of acquisition, and there is no evidentiary data on the transaction cases or appraisal price within three months before and after the date of transfer or acquisition of the relevant property, and the initial disposition based on the conversion

Article 114 of the Income Tax Act shall determine, correct and notify the tax base for transfer income and amount of tax.

2013Gudan12952 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

O KimO

O Head of tax office

2014.23

2014.08.20

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 105,482,190 (including additional tax) for the Plaintiff on October 1, 2012 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 11, 2001, KimO sold to the Plaintiff ① OO-dong 458-14 145 m2, and ② 691 m2,800 m2,000 m2 (hereinafter “instant land” among the 458-8 m2,00 m2,000 m2, which was newly constructed on the instant land at the time, the building (hereinafter “instant building”) with the total floor area of 187.20 m2,00 m2,000 m2, which was newly built on the instant land at the time.

B. On January 16, 2002, the OO market uses the owner of the building of this case as KimO

person was granted.

C. On February 26, 2002, the Plaintiff changed the above owner’s name to himself, and made registration of ownership preservation on the instant building. On March 15, 2002, the Plaintiff acquired registration of ownership transfer on the instant land, respectively, but transferred the instant land and building to EO on May 16, 2002.

D. Since then, the Plaintiff calculated the transfer value of this land and building as indicated in the following table to the Defendant as KRW 212,00,000, and the acquisition value of KRW 200,450,80 (land 162,80,000 + KRW 37,650,80,000 + building 37,650,80), and reported and paid the transfer income tax. However, the head of the competent △△△△△ Tax Office (the Defendant is indicated as the Defendant; hereinafter the same shall apply) determined the transfer value of KRW 475,00,00, and the acquisition value of KRW 244,968,586 by recognizing the transfer income tax as stated in the above report and on October 1, 2012, determined and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 24,063,540, which deducted the already paid tax amount.

E. Accordingly, the Tax Tribunal, upon filing an appeal by the Plaintiff, decided that “the acquisition value of the building of this case shall be calculated as the conversion price under the Income Tax Act, and thus, the Defendant recognized the acquisition value of the building of this case as KRW 182,521,130, and corrected the tax amount as KRW 106,387,235, and imposed and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 105,482,190, which was the remainder after deducting the already paid tax amount, on May 10, 2013 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

Gu Sector

Transfer Value

Acquisition Value

Necessary expenses

Amount of final tax

Details of reports;

212,000,000

200,450,800

6,091,550

1,064,754

Original Disposition

475,000,000

''

27,266,350

244,968,586

Correction Disposition

''

345,321,930

19,658,573

106,387,235

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 6 evidence, Gap 11, 12 evidence, Eul 1 and 2 each entry

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff acquired the instant land from KimO in total of KRW 162,80,000 and KRW 370,000,000,000. At the time of the sales contract, the instant building was not approved for use as a completed building, and it was not prepared for a sales contract due to a design change, etc. during the construction. As such, the Plaintiff did not prepare a sales contract and replaced it by “a contract (receipt concurrently)” (Evidence A7-1) without preparing a sales contract, since the Plaintiff paid KRW 370,00,000 for the said purchase price as follows, it should be recognized as acquisition value.

A) On December 11, 2001, KRW 50 million (one check)

B) On December 28, 2001, KRW 50 million (one check)

C) On December 31, 2001, KRW 170 million (10 million check ＋ KRW 70 million in cash)

D) KRW 100 million (one check) on February 6, 2002

2) If the actual transaction price is not recognized, OO’s purchase of the instant land and buildings from the Plaintiff and re-sale of the instant land and buildings to the Korea Land and Housing Corporation shall be recognized as “sale case price, appraisal price, or conversion price.”

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Whether the actual transaction price of the instant building is recognized

It is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff paid KRW 207,200,000 to KimO as the purchase price of the building of this case only with the descriptions of evidence Nos. 7 through 10 and testimony of witness KimO by the witness KimO, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is not acceptable.

2) Method of estimating acquisition value

According to Article 114(7) of the Income Tax Act and Article 176-2(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, where it is impossible to recognize or confirm the actual transaction price as at the time of the transfer or acquisition of the pertinent asset by books or other evidentiary documents, where there is an example of sale of assets identical or similar to the relevant assets (excluding stocks, etc. of a stock-listed corporation) within three months before and after the date of transfer or acquisition, the value thereof; 2. Where there is an appraisal value which is assessed by two or more appraisal corporations on the relevant assets (excluding stocks, etc.) within three months before and after the date of transfer or acquisition (limited to those whose date of appraisal is within three months before and after the date of transfer or acquisition, respectively), the average value of such appraisal value; (3) The acquisition value converted pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (2); and (4) the standard market

However, in this case, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is not accepted since there is no evidence of the "sale cases or appraisal prices within three months before and after the date of the transfer or acquisition of the pertinent property" which falls under the requirements of the provisions of paragraph (1) and (2) (the plaintiff is asserting that the acquisition price of the building of this case should be recognized as the conversion price of the above provision (the plaintiff is asserting that the acquisition price of the building of this case should be recognized as the conversion price of

3. Conclusion

Ultimately, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.