In the same complex, the principal disposition of apartment transaction example at the market price of the donated property is legitimate;

The apartment of this case and comparative apartment in the same complex are the same floor, same as that of the comparative apartment, and its standard market price is the same, and the market price provided by the National Bank can be deemed to have properly reflected the objective exchange value, unless there are special circumstances.

Article 49(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

2013Guhap451 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

literatureA

The Director of the Pacific District Office

May 3, 2013

May 24, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of gift tax OOO on August 1, 2012 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

"A. On December 29, 2010, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of donation on September 1, 2010 with respect to 1/2 shares (hereinafter referred to as the "share of this case") out of OO-dong 27 BB apartment 524 Dong 102 (hereinafter referred to as the "the apartment of this case"). B. The Plaintiff assessed the value of the share of this case to the Defendant on January 24, 201, as the standard market price at the time of the apartment of this case, and reported and paid KRW OO of gift tax to the Defendant.

C. However, the Defendant: (a) reported the market price of the instant apartment; and (b) notified the Plaintiff of the gift tax calculated on August 1, 2012 on the premise that the sales contract was concluded on November 10, 2010, which was within three months from the date of acquisition of the instant equity interest; (c) the OOOOO of the OO-dong 27 BB apartment 521 Dong 101 (hereinafter referred to as “non-affiliated apartment”); and (d) “The Plaintiff filed a request with the Tax Tribunal for a trial on August 20, 2012, upon objection to the instant disposition, the Plaintiff dismissed the said request on November 20, 2012.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the comparable apartment is superior to the apartment of this case in various respects, such as location, direction, view right, sunshine right, traffic conditions, expected profit when redevelopment is conducted, etc., the disposition of this case, which calculated the gift tax against the plaintiff by deeming the transaction value as the market price of the apartment of this case, is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 7 through 9 and Gap evidence Nos. 11, both the apartment of this case and the comparable apartment of this case are located in the Jamb5 complex. While the apartment of this case is located near the south side of Han River and the Jambleung, the comparative apartment of this case is located near the Olympic Games, and the distance to the subway station, such as commercial buildings, etc. is relatively relatively close to the apartment of this case. On December 2010, 2010, it is recognized that the 523 neighboring apartment of this case, each floor of the 523 apartment of this case, the comparative apartment of this case, was traded with the OO0 won more than the 521 unit unit of the 521 unit, the comparative apartment of this case.

However, comprehensively taking account of the above evidence and the purport of the entire argument in the evidence Nos. 4 through 6, each of the above apartment buildings is composed of one story, and the whole area is 103.40 square meters, and all of the standard market prices is as of April 30, 2010, OOOOO as of April 30, 201, OOOO as of April 30, 201, sales price of apartment of the same area as the apartment of this case among apartment complexes within the lockB5 apartment complexes announced by the National Bank is OO, upper limit is OO, OOO, average is 00,000,000 OOB5 apartment complexes are currently being reconstructed, and it can be acknowledged that the above apartment complex No. 2 and 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act is not constructed by the average market price of the apartment complex of this case as of December 12, 2010.

Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful.

3. Conclusion

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