beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On June 26, 2006, the Plaintiff acquired the instant real estate and the instant machinery and apparatus through the public sale process, on August 17, 2006, the Plaintiff transferred the instant real estate and the instant machinery and apparatus to C (hereinafter “C”) on the following date: (a) on the land of 30,936 square meters of B factory site; (b) 165 square meters of a B-dong factory; (c) 490 square meters of a non-dong factory; and (d) 329 square meters of a c-dong factory; and (e) 1,089 square meters of a warehouse (hereinafter “instant real estate”); and (b) on October 30, 2006, the Plaintiff reported and paid the transfer value of the instant real estate to the Defendant as KRW 16,470 million (land KRW 470,00,000, KRW 3300,000).
B. After conducting a field investigation of capital gains tax with respect to the Plaintiff, the head of Pyeongtaek-si Tax Office deemed that the Plaintiff transferred the instant real estate and machinery to KRW 1.434 billion (including value-added tax), and notified the Defendant of taxation data with the transfer value of KRW 1.771 million (land KRW 7.41 million, building KRW 330 million).
C. Accordingly, on August 6, 2012, the Defendant issued a correction and notification of KRW 225,931,61,610 of the transfer income tax for the year 2006 on the Plaintiff’s under-reported return amounting to KRW 271,00,00,00, on the premise that the transfer value of the instant real estate and machinery constitutes a case where the distinction between the transfer value of the instant real estate and machinery is unclear upon the Plaintiff’s filing of objection, the Defendant reduced the transfer value of the instant real estate to KRW 1,43,40,000 by 96,861,977 (land 623,089,381, building 343,772,596) in proportion to the appraised value of the instant real estate at the time when the Plaintiff acquired the instant real estate and machinery by public auction pursuant to the proviso of Article 48-2(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act. The Defendant reduced the transfer income tax for the year 2036,386,4.
The defendant appealed against this and filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal, but on September 3, 2013.