Cho Jae-2015- Middlebu Office-0278 ( October 16, 2015)

It is difficult to recognize that the purchase price is the amount claimed by the Plaintiff solely based on the Plaintiff’s assertion

It is difficult to recognize that the purchase price is the amount claimed by the Plaintiff solely based on the Plaintiff’s assertion

Article 96 of the Income Tax Act

2015Gudan1216 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

SS

△△ Head of the tax office

October 7, 2016

November 18, 2016

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 capital gains tax of KRW 00,000,000 (including additional tax) for the year 2004 against the Plaintiff on September 12, 2014 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 4, 2004, the Plaintiff owned 9,311 square meters in total (hereinafter “12 lots”) of 12 lots, including ○○○○-ri through ○○○○-○○○, ○○-○, and ○○-○ road, etc., and transferred HH and 12 others on May 4, 2004.

B. As to this, the Plaintiff reported and paid the transfer income tax with the transfer value of KRW 50 million. On April 28, 2013, the Defendant confirmed that the actual transfer value of the instant land was KRW 800,000,000 (including additional tax) for the Plaintiff on September 12, 2014, the Plaintiff confirmed that the actual transfer value of the instant land was KRW 800,000,000 (including additional tax) for the transfer income tax for the year 2004.

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on November 18, 2014, but was dismissed on March 16, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 2-1, Evidence No. 2-1, Evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The actual value of the Plaintiff’s transfer of the instant land to HH, etc. is KRW 50 million.

B. Determination

B Nos. 2, 5, 6 and 2 (the Plaintiff’s stamp image part was forged)

However, according to each statement of the following specifications, witness PP, CCC’s testimony, and the purport of the whole testimony and pleading, each statement of the following specifications, witness PP, and CCC’s testimony and pleading, the authenticity of the entire document can be presumed to have been established, and each of the testimony and arguments by HHH and 12 out of May 4, 2004, the Plaintiff transferred the instant land to HH and 12 out of 80 million won, and from HH and 12 out of HH and 12 up to 70 million won on May 4, 2004, as the down payment through HH and H, 70 million won, 30 million won as the down payment through the PP on June 4, 2004, 30 million won as the intermediate payment, 50 million won as the whole, 4.5 billion won as the Plaintiff’s evidence and evidence Nos. 1 to 3141,500,000 won as the remainder of the purchase price.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.