Maternho-ho

Head of Daegu Tax Office

September 18, 1970

The disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 186,020 and defense tax of KRW 18,601 against the Plaintiff on August 12, 197 shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details and details of the taxation disposition of the instant case

Comprehensively taking account of all the arguments in Eul 1, 2, 3 (Determination, taxation data, decision date), and 7 evidence No. 1, which have no dispute over its establishment, the defendant assessed the total amount of KRW 1,000 on April 10, 1971, 86-4, Nam-gu, Daegu-gu, 861 (hereinafter referred to as the "land of this case") on October 20, 197 for sale and purchase as of September 28, 197; KRW 1,00,000 for KRW 3,00,00,000 for KRW 1,000,000 for KRW 2,00,000 for KRW 7,000,000 for KRW 1,00,000 for KRW 3,00,000 for KRW 1,67,000 for KRW 1,5,000 for KRW 86,00,00 for KRW 2,00.

2. The arguments and issues of the parties

(1) The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case by the defendant against the plaintiff, who assessed the transfer value at the market price at the time of sale, is unlawful, and that the disposition of this case by the plaintiff is not against the acquisition value, since the land category on the public record is long, since the land category on May 11, 1974 was designated and publicly announced as a planned urban planning site, and was actually no principal road, and purchased from the plaintiff to 80,000,000 won as a result of the necessity of use on the land adjacent to the land of this case by the non-party Dol, and the plaintiff purchased from the plaintiff to 80,000 won as a result of the necessity of use on the passage. The real transfer value of the land of this case is obvious but it is not obvious that the transfer value at the market price at the time of the sale is transferred at the market price at the time of the sale, and there is no dispute as to the acquisition value, etc.

(2) Therefore, the issues in the instant case are whether the taxation disposition in this case, which assessed the transfer value of the instant land as the market price standard amount, is legitimate or not.

3. Judgment of party members

(1) In full view of the statements in Gap's Nos. 1, 4, 5, and 6 without dispute over the establishment, evidence Nos. 1, 2-1, and evidence Nos. 3 (a sales contract), and evidence Nos. 3 (a sales contract) which can be recognized as true by witness's testimony, and the whole purport of the pleading in the witness's testimony, the land of this case is transferred to the public register, and the land price of this case was acquired by the plaintiff as of April 10, 1971, but the land price of this case was adjusted to increase the market price as a residential area by urban planning, and the land of this case was designated and announced as a prearranged area for fire fighting under urban planning by North Korea No. 190 on May 11, 1974; since the land price was actually used as a road, the land price of this case was adjusted to a higher price than 00,000 won to the neighboring land, the land price of this case was owned by the plaintiff and sold it to the neighboring land.

(2) Article 23 (1) of the Income Tax Act at the time of transfer of the land (amended by Act No. 293, Dec. 2, 197; hereinafter the same shall apply) defines transfer income accruing from the transfer of land, and paragraph (2) of the same Article shall be the amount deducting the sum of the amount of transfer income deduction (700,000 won) and the amount of transfer income tax calculated under Article 45 of the Act from the standard market price at the time of transfer; and paragraph (5) of the same Article shall be the current base value at the time of transfer if it is unclear that the actual transaction value should be calculated based on the standard market price at the time of transfer; and Article 23 (1) of the same Act shall be applicable to the resident’s transfer income calculated based on the standard market price at the time of transfer; and Article 23 (1) of the same Act, to the resident who transfers the assets calculated based on the standard market price at the time of transfer under paragraph (2) of the same Article.

However, if the Plaintiff transferred the land of this case and the Plaintiff did not make a final return on the profits accruing from the transfer of the land of this case under Article 95 of the Income Tax Act, and there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff made the final return on the profits accruing from the transfer of the land of this case under Article 100 of the same Act, so if the above statutory interpretation is accepted at par, the Defendant’s taxation of this case, which assessed the transfer value of the land of this case as the market

(3) However, the legislative intent of the Act provides that the above amount of capital gains shall be calculated based on the actual transaction value in principle, and if there is no preliminary return or final return on transfer of assets, the transfer value of the assets shall be appraised as the market price standard amount. If there is no such report, the time and expenses for the tax agency to grasp the actual transaction value per day is anticipated in the absence of such report, so that it is difficult for the tax agency to ascertain the actual transaction value itself, and thus, it would hinder the government’s exercise of taxation right, and there is no case where the taxpayer evades taxes, so that the transfer value would be evaluated by the uniform method of the market price publicly notified by the government, thereby preventing convenience in the government’s exercise of taxation right and tax evasion. However, it is difficult to view that the sale value of the land belonging to such area is more than the actual market price of the land at the market price, and thus, if the land is determined by the government as the price of the land at the same time than the actual market price of the land at the market price, it can be evaluated as the actual market price of the land at the same time.

Therefore, in imposing the transfer income tax, the tax authorities consider that the land was transferred to the Plaintiff and that there was no actual return on the transfer income or the final return on the tax base, and thus no choice but to do so under the law (the citizen of the majority can easily report the transfer value under the tax law), rather than assessing the transfer value by making efforts to the minimum extent that does not hinder the exercise of the government’s right to impose the transfer income. However, even if the actual transaction value is clear, if the actual transaction value is calculated based on the current market value, the actual transaction value would be reduced to the minimum amount of damages caused to the Plaintiff by calculating the transfer value according to the above actual transaction value and preventing the original transaction value of the land from being assessed based on the above 0th anniversary of the actual transaction value, the actual transaction value of the land would be 00 per se reasonable and reasonable, which is the basic principle of taxation and the duty of the tax official to impose the transfer income tax on the Plaintiff. In light of the above provisions of Article 170(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the National Tax Act, the transfer value of the land at issue.

(4) Thus, the defendant's disposition of imposing transfer income tax on the transfer of the land of this case is unfair because there is no evidence that the defendant made such efforts at the minimum level as above to grasp the actual transfer value of the land of this case only because the plaintiff did not make a final return on the profit accruing from the transfer of property under Article 95 of the Income Tax Act or the final return on the return on the return on the transfer of property under Article 100 of the same Act. The defendant's disposition of imposing transfer income tax on the transfer of this case with the transfer value of KRW 800,000,000,000,000 as the actual transaction value, and there is no tax base of transfer income ( KRW 80,765,9465 + KRW 3,9460,700 + KRW 93,252) under the Income Tax Act. Thus, the defendant's disposition of imposing transfer income tax on the transfer of this case is obviously invalid (the defendant also has no tax base in calculating calculation).

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is legitimate, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition.

October 2, 1979

Judges Park Jae-sik (Presiding Judge) 8