early 2010 Heavy108 (Law No. 12, 2010)

Underreporting the transfer value while trading real estate;

Comprehensively taking account of the fact that a person who arranged for a real estate exchange contract has decided to succeed to the amount of a loan, the transfer value is underreported.

2010Guhap3973 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

XX

O Head of tax office

May 17, 2011

July 5, 2011

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 89,827,840 on December 4, 2009 against the Plaintiff on December 4, 2009 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 28, 2005, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with EA on the exchange of the buildings of XX 243-1,253 square meters and above ground (hereinafter referred to as the “instant real estate”) owned by the Plaintiff, and the OO-si 163 square meters and 163 square meters of land for a 164 square meters of land for a 165 square meters of the same Ri, and 1,398 square meters of land for a 165 square meters of the same Ri (hereinafter referred to as “the instant exchange agreement”) owned by EA (hereinafter referred to as “the instant exchange agreement”).

B. The Plaintiff reported the acquisition value of the instant real estate to the Defendant as KRW 283,211,00, and the transfer value as KRW 316,00,000, and paid the transfer income tax.

C. On December 4, 2009, the Defendant: (a) considered the Plaintiff as underreporting the transfer value at the time the Plaintiff reported the transfer income tax on the instant real estate; (b) assessed the actual transfer value at KRW 542,00,000; and (c) issued the instant disposition that corrected and imposed KRW 89,827,840 for the transfer income tax for the year 2005.

D. On March 16, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, and received a decision of dismissal on July 12, 2010, and filed the instant lawsuit.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 evidence, Eul 1 and 2 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff evaluated the instant real estate as KRW 300,000,000 and entered into an exchange contract. On the other hand, when the actual transaction price is unknown in the exchange, the amount of transfer is determined based on the standard market price, but the Defendant arbitrarily calculated the transfer price as KRW 542,00,000, and thus, the instant disposition was unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

In full view of the purport of Gap 1, 2, Eul 3, 5, and 6's arguments, (1) while entering into an exchange contract of this case, the plaintiff and Eul 300,000 won were succeeded to the secured debt of 300,000 won established on the real estate of this case; (2) the plaintiff entered into an exchange contract of this case with the plaintiff on March 28, 2005 that the secured debt of 00 won would be 00,000 won were 30,000 won were 10,000 won were 10,000 won were 30,000 won were 10,000 won were 40,00 won were 0,000 won were 30,00 won were 10,000 won were 10,000 won were 30,000 won were 10,00 won were 30,00 won were 20,00 won were 205.

Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition on which the transfer income tax was imposed by deeming the actual transfer value of the instant real estate as KRW 542,00,000 is lawful (the Plaintiff alleged that the instant real estate was assessed as KRW 300,000,000, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.