Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

According to Articles 94 and 95 of the Income Tax Act and Article 142 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the Plaintiff stipulates that a person who transfers assets shall make a preliminary return on the gains from transfer of assets by the end of the month following the month in which the transfer date belongs, and that the government shall immediately determine the profit margin and the tax amount to be paid, and notify the person liable for tax payment if he fails to make a return and payment by the end of the month following the month in which the transfer date belongs. Thus, the starting date of the extinctive prescription of the transfer income tax claim of this case is the date of July 31, 1981 where the five years have passed under the provisions of Article 27(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes from the end of the month following the month in which the transfer date belongs, and the above disposition imposed on January 11, 1982 after the expiration of the extinctive prescription period is unlawful. Thus, Article 27(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that the State’s right to collect national taxes shall be extinguished for five years from the end of the year.

Therefore, when the defendant is entitled to exercise the right to impose capital gains tax on the plaintiff for the 76 year of this case, it shall be from the expiration date of April 30, 197, which is the filing deadline under the above provision. Thus, the starting point of the statute of limitations shall be reckoned from May 1, 197, the day following the expiration date of the above filing deadline, and the statute of limitations shall expire on April 30, 1982, which is five years after the expiration of the above filing deadline. Thus, the disposition of imposing capital gains tax on the plaintiff on January 11, 1982 is legitimate.

However, according to the provisions of Articles 95 and 97 of the Income Tax Act as to capital gains tax, a taxpayer who transfers assets shall report gains on transfer of such assets to the government at the same time by the end of the month following the month in which the date of such transfer falls, and shall pay by voluntary return the tax amount deducted by the prescribed provisions. According to the provisions of Article 99 and Article 94 of the same Act, if a resident who transfers assets fails to make a preliminary return on gains on transfer of assets and voluntary payment, the Government can impose capital gains tax immediately, and thus, it is possible to exercise a tax claim from the time when the period of preliminary return expires, so there is a claim that the extinctive prescription will run from the time when a taxpayer can exercise a tax claim. However, as the State is also trying to secure the tax collection early and simplify the tax collection period, the right to impose capital gains tax is not only the right to impose a final return for the above purpose, but also the right to impose a final return for transfer income and the right to impose capital gains tax on the person who has not made a preliminary return.

Therefore, in the transfer income tax, the point of time when the period of taxation period expires and the statutory period of return expires, which can exercise the right to confirm the tax claim, shall be deemed the starting point of the extinctive prescription of the national tax claim, and it shall not be deemed the starting point with the preliminary return period for the transfer marginal profits from the transfer of the property of the plaintiff. Therefore, the argument that the starting point is the starting point of the extinctive prescription of this case from the day

Thus, the plaintiff's claim for objection is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

March 10, 1983

Judges Yoon Sang-ho (Presiding Judge)