Cho-2014 Middle-1555 (20 May 2014)

The key amount of the argument shall not be considered as acquisition value.

The Plaintiff’s withdrawal from the Plaintiff’s financial account at the time of acquiring the instant land is limited to KRW 0,000 among down payment, remainder payment, and part payment, and there is a difficulty in verifying the objective source of the remainder part payment.

Article 97 (Calculation of Necessary Expenses in Transfer Income)

2014-Gu short-2687 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

AA

o Head of the tax office

1, 2016.05

oly 2, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

On November 4, 2013, the Defendant revoked each disposition of the capital gains tax for the imposition of the capital gains tax for the year 2013, imposed on the Plaintiff with respect to the amount of O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-Ma-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-20 square meters.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 29, 2002, the Plaintiff acquired a O-O-O pentm2 (hereinafter “instant land”). On April 20, 2010, the Plaintiff transferred the instant land No. 1 on April 28, 2010 and transferred the instant land No. 2 on February 28, 2013.

B. After investigating the transfer income tax of the Plaintiff, the Defendant applied the conversion acquisition value on the ground that the acquisition value of the instant land cannot be confirmed. On November 4, 2013, the Defendant imposed on the Plaintiff KRW 00,000 on the Plaintiff, KRW 00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000

C. The Plaintiff filed an objection against it on December 16, 2013, and the Defendant recognized the OOO Ri as the substantive acquisition value of the land of this case on January 9, 2014, and issued a correction and notification as OO Ri for the land of this case, and OO Ri for the land of this case for the transfer income tax of this case for the transfer income tax of 2010, respectively (hereinafter “instant disposition of imposition on the remainder of the capital gains tax corrected as above in the disposition of imposition as of November 4, 2013”).

D. The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on March 4, 2014, but was dismissed on May 20, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] No dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1 to 4 (including each number), the whole purport of pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although the Plaintiff acquired the instant land in KRW 00,000, the Defendant’s disposition based on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

Even in a case where the document is a disposal document proved to be genuine, the probative value may be rejected in a case where there is a reflective proof or where there is a reasonable ground to deem the content stated in the document as contrary to the objective truth (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Nu3398, Oct. 13, 1995; 97Nu1195, Oct. 24, 1997).

2) Whether the acquisition value was 200 million won or not

According to Gap evidence Nos. 6, 7, 9, and 11 and witness BB and CCC's testimony, etc., the sales contract of September 2, 2002 prepared by the plaintiff with BB representing CCC on behalf of the owner of the land of this case (hereinafter referred to as "the sales contract of this case") stated the purchase price of this case as KRW 00 million. According to the above contract, the sales contract of this case includes the intermediate payment of KRW 00 million on the date of the contract; KRW 100,000,000 on September 23, 2002; KRW 200,000,000 on the remainder of KRW 200,000,000,000,000,000,000 won was transferred from 200,000,0000,000,000 won was delivered from 20,000,0000,000 won.

However, in light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the overall purport of Gap evidence 5 through 12, and witness CCC testimony and pleading in addition to the evidence mentioned above u300, u300, the following facts and circumstances revealed that the plaintiff acquired the land of this case in KRW 200 million are not reliable, and the above facts and the remaining evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone are insufficient to acknowledge the above assertion. Thus, there is no other evidence to acknowledge the acquisition value of the land of this case, and there is no error in the disposition of this case that the defendant recognized only KRW 00,00,00,00,000, for which the financial transaction details of the land of this case were confirmed.

In this Court, the seller testified that “the land was purchased at the level of KRW 00 million and sold the land to the Plaintiff,” “BB,” which was known as a licensed real estate agent at the time of the sale contract, and that “the delegated method was in the form of giving rise to the degree of sale,” and “the Plaintiff was in the form of sales contract and did not have any record of the contract at the time of the sale contract.” Accordingly, at the time of the sales contract, CCC only received the amount guaranteed by BB (the amount is not accurately memory), and it seems that there was no particular interest in the actual purchase price to the extent that the contract was not executed without meeting the contracting party, and that there was no particular interest in the actual purchase price. In addition, in light of the degree of anticipated marginal profits at the time of CCC and the delegation method of sale, the testimony that CCC received an amount of KRW 00,000 from BB to the extent that the actual purchase price was less than the amount of KRW 00,000.

According to the testimony of ○○, especially CCC, he was subject to a tax authority’s investigation on the source level of KRW KRW 00 million with respect to the funds for purchasing real estate equivalent to KRW 100 million purchased between 2002 and 2003. In order to provide evidence, the Plaintiff was found to be late through BB and then submitted to the tax authority the instant sales contract which became KRW 00 million. This would have become an important opportunity for the seller to have common interest in the sales contract of this case as to the entry of KRW 00 million in the sales contract of this case into KRW 00,000.

○ BB, while operating a licensed real estate agent office in its name, arranged several sales contracts for the land of Pyeongtaek-si, Pyeongtaek-si, including the instant land, and with respect to the instant land, BB appears to have been entrusted by CCC to the Plaintiff and its agent to prepare the sales contract of the instant land and to have received a certain amount of the sales price as a brokerage commission. As such, the testimony of BBB, which was overall engaged in the conclusion of the instant sales contract, preparation of the contract, payment and payment of the price, and reporting of the transfer income tax, is difficult to trust the contents of the contract.

○○ The seal of approval submitted by the Plaintiff for the registration of the instant land stated that the purchase price is only KRW 00,000, and the acquisition price (O00,000) claimed by the Plaintiff constitutes 4.6 times or more than the standard market price (O0,000) at the time of the Plaintiff’s possession of the instant land. In addition, the individual land price of the instant land has increased by approximately KRW 5.9 times from O0,000, while compared the acquisition price (O0,000,000) claimed by the Plaintiff with the transfer price (O0,000,000 won). Furthermore, the average transaction price of the instant land in the neighboring areas of the instant land traded by BB is about KRW 2.5 times, while the ordinary transaction price of the instant land in the instant area is about KRW O0,000, the average transaction price of the instant land claimed by the Plaintiff

○○ at the time of the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant land, the amount of withdrawal from the Plaintiff’s financial account is limited to KRW 00,000,000,000,000,0000 and KRW 00,000,000 among the down payment and the intermediate payment, and it is difficult to verify the objective source for KRW 80,000,000 of the remainder of the intermediate payment. In view of the head of passbook transaction (Evidence A) submitted by the Plaintiff, it is readily known that, around the date of the down payment and the remainder payment, the deposit amount of KRW 0,00,000 was verified, and the amount equivalent to the said money was withdrawn and used as the down payment or the remainder. However, it can be seen that the agricultural bank account was in a state of math.

○ On September 23, 2002, the intermediate payment receipt received on September 23, 2002 under the name of BB does not contain the Plaintiff’s name, unlike the down payment and the balance receipt, and the form differs from the down payment or the balance receipt.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.