In addition to the seal of approval, the stamp of approval for the increase contract without any separate contract shall be deemed to constitute the actual contract.

It is reasonable to dispose of the approval seal contract by viewing it as the actual contract, such as where it is difficult to view that the approval seal contract was falsely prepared or forged, and the effect of the approval seal contract is not divided solely by the statement of the broker.

Articles 96 and 97 of the Income Tax Act

2015Guhap5287 Revocation of capital gains tax

IsaA

BB Director of the Tax Office

October 15, 2015

December 10, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

On April 1, 2014, the Defendant revoked the disposition of imposition of capital gains taxO,OO, andOOOO as the Plaintiff on April 1, 201 (the written complaint on April 8, 2014 is written in writing).

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff, acquired from thisCC on August 25, 2003, transferred the transfer value of the land of this case to the head of KK, who had jurisdiction over the domicile of the plaintiff as of February 24, 2004, transferred the land of this case to OO, OO,O,O,O,O, capital gains tax, O, O,O, capital gains tax, O, O,O, capital gains tax, O, O,O,O, capital gains tax, O, O,O, capital gains tax, O,O, O,O, capital gains tax, O, O,O,O, capital gains tax, O, O,O,O, capital gains tax, O, O,O,O,O, capital gains tax, O,O,O,O,O, capital gains tax, O, O,O,O,O, capital gains tax, O, O, O,O,O, O, capital gains tax, and the capital gains tax, O, O,O,O,O,O,O,O, and won, O, O, O, O,O,O, and won, won, and won, won, won, won, won, won, won, won, won.

B. On February 2, 2009, Nonparty 1 transferred the instant land to the Court of Court of Court of Court of Court of Court of Court of Court of Court of Court of Court of Court of Court of Court of Court of Court of Court of Court of Court of Court of Court of Court of Court Administration, and reported the transfer income tax to the head of POO,OO, andOO. In this regard, the head of the LL Tax Office notified the Defendant of the purport that the transfer value reported by the Plaintiff and the transfer

C. On October 8, 2009, the defendant notified the plaintiff that the acquisition value of the land of this case shall be determined by OO, OO, OO, transfer amount shall be determined by OO, OO, and OO. In addition, the defendant notified the plaintiff that the acquisition value of the land of this case shall be determined by "OO,O, and OO".

D. The actual acquisition price of the land of this case is OO, OO, OO, and the actual transfer price.

OO,OO, andOO won. At the time of acquisition, the defendant presented a sales contract and bank payment data at the time of acquisition to the defendant. On January 2014, 4, and 1, the defendant made the acquisition value of the land of this case as OO, OO, OO, and transfer value as OO, OO, andOO, the transfer value of which belongs to the plaintiff as OO, OO, andO, and the notice of correction and notification (this "the disposition of this case") for the capital gains tax for the year 2003.

E. On June 30, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the Defendant on the instant disposition, but was dismissed on July 7, 2014, and dismissed. The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on September 30, 2014, but was dismissed on December 31, 2014.

2. Whether the disposition of this case is legitimate or not, and whether the disposition of this case is legitimate or not. The plaintiff's assertion is legitimate.

1) The actual transfer value of the instant land is KRW 178,00,000, and thus, the instant disposition is unlawful with the actual transfer value of the OO, OO, andOO as the amount under the stamp of approval submitted by the Nonparty buyer.

2) Even if the actual transfer value of the instant land is an OO, OO, or OO won, the amount that the Plaintiff received as the purchase price of the instant land is limited to OO, OO, or OO won, and the difference between the actual transfer value and the actual transfer value is deemed to have been acquired by deceiving the Plaintiff and the Nonparty, and thus, the instant disposition that did not consider such circumstance is unlawful.

B. Facts of recognition

1) On July 16, 2003, the Plaintiff purchased the instant land from OO, OO, and OOOO under the FF brokerage, a real estate broker, and again requested OO, OO, and again requested OF to sell the said land. The sales contract (hereinafter “the instant sales contract”) signed between fF and the Nonparty’s agent on December 26, 2003 between OO, OO, and OOO.

2) When the land of this case was substituted on October 26, 2006 by the buyers, on May 11, 2007, the non-party purchaser obtained the approval seal on the sales contract of this case from the head of MMM head and added the above sales contract on the same day on the same day.

In addition, registration of preservation of ownership of the land of this case for substitute land has been completed.

3) The materials on the sales price of the instant land submitted by the Nonparty purchaser to the director of the LL Tax Office are as follows.

4) The Nonparty purchaser paid the purchase price of the instant land to his/her broker, and the said broker paid the purchase price to the FF.

【Facts without dispute over recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 8 (including any number number), the witness F's witness testimony, part of the testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

In light of the following circumstances known from the above facts, ① the Defendant, the disposition authority, is bound to dispose of the instant sales contract in trust, which is an approval seal. The instant sales contract is written by the FF entrusted by the Plaintiff. Since the Plaintiff and the Nonparty’s personal information are written and each seal is affixed, it is difficult to deem that the instant sales contract has been forged or falsely prepared due to a considerable interval between the date of preparation of the instant sales contract and the date of approval seal. ② According to the Plaintiff’s assertion, there is a separate contract stating the purchase price of the instant land in addition to the instant sales contract, as KRW 00,00,00, not only the process of the tax investigation, but also the said contract is not submitted to this court. ③ The Nonparty, the Defendant, adjacent to the date of the sale of the instant land, submitted to the Defendant the evidence that it is difficult for the Plaintiff to be aware that the purchase price of the instant land was 00,000,0000,0000,000 won or more, 10,000.

3. Conclusion

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