Seocho 2012west 4041 (22 December 22, 2013)

There is no evidence to acknowledge that part of the funds received from a real estate purchasing corporation is business compensation expenses.

It is reasonable to view the amount received from the initial purchaser corporation and the business transferee corporation as the transfer value in light of the fact that the purchaser comprehensively transferred the business that did not pay the balance after concluding a real estate sales contract and the purchaser corporation received the business loss compensation, etc. from the business transferee corporation, but there is no evidence to acknowledge such agreement and applied for provisional seizure to receive the balance.

2012Gu 29984 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax, etc.

ThisAAA

Samsung Head of Samsung Tax Office

June 12, 2013

July 10, 2013

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 000 won in 2007 and local income tax of 000 won against the Plaintiff on June 22, 2012 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 25, 2001, the Plaintiff acquired the land and above-ground buildings (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) on June 11, 2007, and transferred them to OO Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “PPP”) on June 11, 2007, and on August 11, 2007, paid capital gains tax of 000 won on the premise that the transfer value is 00 won. (b) the Defendant imposed capital gains tax of 000 won on the Plaintiff on June 22, 2012 on the ground that the actual transfer value of the instant real estate is 00 won, and on June 22, 2012, each of the instant dispositions was imposed on the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff underwent the pre-trial procedure.

[Reasons for Recognition] The non-sured facts, Gap 2-1 to 5-2, and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

O The actual transfer value of the instant real estate is KRW 000. However, the actual transfer value of the instant real estate is the sum of KRW 000 on June 11, 2007, and KRW 000 on March 24, 2008, including KRW 000, and KRW 000 among them is the subject of business compensation expenses. Therefore, the instant disposition that recognized the transfer value of the instant real estate as KRW 00 is unlawful.

O Even if the transfer value of the real estate in this case actually received by the Plaintiff, and since the Plaintiff did not underreporting or underreporting the transfer income tax by improper means, it is unlawful to impose an unfair underreporting additional tax (40% of the additional tax) and an erroneous payment for unfaithful payment.

B. Determination

(1) The following facts are recognized in light of the respective descriptions and arguments made by Gap and 6, 9 through 12, and 1 and 8, and Eul (in accordance with the statements made by Eul evidence 7, the establishment of the entire document is presumed to have been presumed to have been completed, as the whole document is recognized) and by the purport of the whole statements and arguments made by evidence 4 to 6, and 11.

On July 7, 2006, the Plaintiff prepared a sales contract (hereinafter referred to as "the first sales contract") which is 00 won for the purchase price (00 won for contract amount: 00 won for contract amount and the payment date for contract deposit: 00 won for the remainder: 00 won and the payment date for the remainder: 00 won after the approval of the project plan or 6 months after the payment of the down payment, whichever comes earlier) between the Plaintiff and one other than the O co-ownership Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "O co-ownership"), and the O Co-ownership comprehensively acquired the business of O co-ownership.

"Before June 11, 2007, the Plaintiff prepared a sales contract (hereinafter referred to as "the second sales contract") with respect to the instant real estate between the OOO and the sales contract (hereinafter referred to as "the third sales contract"), which is the sales price of 000 won (the contract amount: 00 won, the payment date of the down payment: 00 won, and 00 won: June 11, 2007, and the payment date of the remainder: : 00 won)." "The plaintiff prepared a sales contract (hereinafter referred to as "the third sales contract"), which is 00 won (the contract amount: 00 won) with respect to the instant real estate, between OOO and the sales price of the instant real estate on the date of 207." The plaintiff received 00 won from O on July 7, 2006.

O The plaintiff alleged that the OO co-ownership did not pay the sales balance under the first sales contract, and it is insufficient to recognize that the above amount was confiscated as a penalty. However, considering the fact that the entries in Gap evidence 7 No. 1 through 3 alone are insufficient to recognize that the OO co-ownership comprehensively takes over the business, that the down payment is 00 won in the second sales contract and the third sales contract made between the plaintiff andO sub-party, and that the plaintiff did not report the income from the forfeiture of penalty, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff andO sub-party agreed to recognize the above amount as a down payment for the real estate in this case.

The plaintiff received KRW 000 from the OO on June 11, 2007.

O The Plaintiff agreed to receive KRW 000 as compensation for business losses, etc. according to the failure to perform the O-public contract from O-public contract, and the above KRW 000 out of the above KRW 000 is part of the agreed amount, but there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was such an agreement.

O The plaintiff filed an application for provisional seizure against real estate with the term "sale balance", and with the claimed amount of KRW 000, and on July 31, 2007, the provisional seizure order (U.S. District Court Decision 2007Kadan103081) was issued on January 9, 2008.O sub-deposit deposited KRW 000 for provisional seizure. The plaintiff paid and received the above deposit on March 20, 2008.

O The plaintiff alleged that he received the above money as a contract deposit, and there is no evidence to prove that there was such an agreement, while considering that the content of the claim is written as a sale balance, the plaintiff can find the fact that he applied for provisional seizure in order to receive the purchase price for the real estate of this case.

O) The plaintiff asserted that only KRW 0 million was paid out of the above deposit, and according to the statements in Gap evidence 8-2, it is recognized that the representative of OO prepared and issued receipts stating that 000 won was paid out of March 20, 2008 and 000 won was paid out of the deposit payment, and that the above money was paid out of the remainder after deducting the agreed amount between the plaintiff Lee AA from the deposit payment. In light of the content of this, it is possible to find the fact that JO was paid 00 won out of the deposit payment, unless there are circumstances such as the return of the above money pursuant to the agreement to reduce the purchase price of the real estate, it cannot be viewed that the above 000 won was excluded from the real estate sales price.

(2) According to the above facts, the plaintiff transferred the real estate of this case, and received a total of 000 won from the OO and the OOO that acquired the business of this case (=200 won on July 7, 2006 + KRW 000 on June 11, 2007 + KRW 000 on March 20, 2008). Therefore, it is reasonable to determine the above amount as the actual transfer value of the real estate of this case. Therefore, the calculation of the principal income tax on this premise is lawful. Furthermore, the plaintiff prepared a sales contract 2 stating the amount different from the actual transfer value and made a return and payment of the transfer income tax on this basis, and accordingly, it is legitimate to impose the unjust under-reported additional tax and the wrong under-paid additional tax.

(3) Ultimately, the instant disposition is lawful.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.