B. The meaning of "inception to actual users of good faith" under Article 72 (3) 3 of the above provision

B. In the case of “a disguised consumer of good faith” in Article 72(3)3 of the above provision means a person who actively disguises that a workplace union or a local union formed a housing association under the Housing Construction Promotion Act and constructed and sells a house to members of the association, the person who is qualified as a member of the association, resells the house by disguised purchase of farmland, or acquires and resells farmland by disguised purchase of farmland for the purpose of obtaining only profits from resale, such as where the person who is not a farmer or a farmer, acquires and resells

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제1호증의 1,2(각 고지서), 제2호증(결정서), 제3호증의 1(통지),2(결정서), 제4호증의 1 내지 28(각 등기부등본), 을 제1호증의 1(통보),2(결정내역), 제2호증의 1(결의서),2(명세서),3(자료전),4(명세서),5(계산서) 6내지 9(각 자료전),16,19,20(각 계약서), 제3호증의 1(결정서),2(명세서),3(자료전),4(결의서),5(결정내역),6(자료전),7(복명서), 제4호증의 1,2(신문), 제5호증의 1,2(조사계획), 제6호증(조사요청), 제7호증(조사반설치), 제8호증의 1,2(투기거래지정, 내역), 제9호증(사례), 제10호증(투기혐의자명단), 제11호증(증인신문조서), 제17호증의 1 내지 8(과세자료 겸 결정결의서), 증인 소외 1의 증언에 의하여 진정성립이 인정되는을 제 2호증의 10,12,14, 제3호증의 8,10,12,14,16,18,19,21,23,25,27,29,31(각 확인서)의 각 기재에 위 증인의 증언 및 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 원고는 별지 (1),(2)목록 양도부동산 내역 기재의 각 토지 30필지(이하 이 사건 토지들이라고 한다)를 위 각 목록취득일자란 기재의 일자에 각 취득하여 보유하다가 위 각 목록 양도일자란 기재의 일자에 이를 각 양도하고 나서 그 소정기간내의 자산양도차익예정신고를 하면서 기준시가에 따라 양도차익을 계산한 후 1983년도 귀속분으로 양도소득세 금 1,204,798원, 동 방위세 금 120,378원을, 1984년도 귀속분으로 양도소득세 금 41,507,360원, 동 방위세 금 7,322,640원을 각 산출하여 이를 자진납부하였고 피고는 위 각 자진납부세액 중 1984년도 귀속분 양도소득세 및 동 방위세는 신고한 그대로 확정결정하였으나 1983년도 귀속분 양도소득세 및 동 방위세에 그 세액계산에 잘못이 있다하여 양도소득세를 금 6,190,858원으로 방위세를 금 1,208,238원으로 각 증액결정한 후 이에서 위 자진납부세액을 각 공제하여 차감고지세액으로서 양도소득세 금 4,986,060원, 동 방위세 금 1,087,860원을 부과고지하였고 이에 따라 원고는 위 양도소득세 및 방위세를 납부한 사실, 그런데 정부가 1985.9.5. 경기 시흥군과 화성군 일대의 해안에 대규모 간척사업계획안을 발표함으로써 이 일대의 야산을 중심으로 토지투기가 일어날 조짐이 보이자 이에 대한 대책으로 서울지방국세청장은 1986.4.경 위 지역의 토지거래가 투기거리인지를 가려내기 위하여 대규모 토지거래자조사계획을 수립하여 그해 6.말 까지는 부동산투기조사전담반으로 하여금 5만평 이상 토지거래자와 부녀자 및 30세 이하 사람의 토지거래를 중심으로 부동산투기조사를 하게 한 결과 원고와 그의 처인 소외 2는 모두 5만평 이상의 대규모 토지거래자에 해당할 뿐더러 실수요의 목적없이 취득하여 전매차익만을 목적으로 양도하였으므로 원고의 이 사건 토지들의 양도는 투기거래로 판명된 때에 해당된다 하여 원고의 위와 같은 기준시기가에 의한 예정신고(84년 3얼) 및 이에 기초한 과세결정(83년도 귀속분)을 모두 부인하고 소득세법 제23조 제4항 단서, 제45조 제1항 제1호 단서, 같은법시행령 제170조 제1항 과 제4항 , 제2조 및 재산제세조사사무처리규정(국세청훈령 제888호 및 제916호 이하 제세처리규정이라고만 한다) 제72조 제3항 제3호 및 제5호의 각 규정을 적용하여 이 사건 토지들의 양도가액은 별지 (1), (2) 목록 해당 양도가액란 기재의 각 실지거래가액에 의하고 취득가액에 대하여는 위 시행령 제115조 제1항 제1호 (다)목 에 의한 환산가액에 의하여 이 각 목록 각 해당 취득가액란 기재와 같이 산출하여 양도차익을 계산한 뒤 1986.7.18. 별지(3) 세액산출표 기재와 같이 1983년도 귀속분 총 결정세액으로서 양도소득세 금 39,720,352원, 동 방위세 금 7,946,436원 중에서 자진납부세액 및 기납부세액을 공제하여 차감고지세액으로서 양도소득세 금 33,511,490원, 동 방위세 금 6,738,190원의 1984년도 귀속분 총결정세액으로서 양도소득세 금 270,004,920원, 동 방위세 금 54,196,749원 중에서 자진납부세액을 공제하여 차감고지세액으로서 양도소득세 금 228,497,560원, 동 방위세 금 46,874,100원의 각 부과처분 (이하 이 사건 과세처분이라고 한다)을 한 사실을 인정할 수 있고 달리 반증이 없다.

2. Assertion and determination

(1) As to the allegation that the disposition of this case was lawful on the ground of the above applicable provisions of taxation, the Plaintiff rejected the initial decision based on the standard market price, and applied Article 72(3) of the Tax Treatment Regulation to the Plaintiff’s transfer of land, but the above tax treatment regulation is a direction by the National Tax Service. It is an administrative order related to the operation of tax administration or interpretation and application of Acts and subordinate statutes to lower-level administrative agencies, and it is not binding externally, and it is not allowed to determine the tax requirements pursuant to the above taxation without the law under the principle of no taxation without the National Assembly, since the Plaintiff’s act of purchasing and using the land was not contrary to the above provision of no taxation without the law, and thus, it cannot be a basis for the imposition of no taxation without the law of no taxation without the law, and thus, the Plaintiff’s allegation that the above disposition of this case was invalid on the ground that it constitutes an unlawful taxation without the legal basis for the imposition of no taxation without the law of no taxation without the National Tax Service’s imposition of no taxation without the law.

(2) first consider the relevant laws and regulations;

Articles 23 (4) and 45 (1) 1 of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3576 of Dec. 21, 1982) provide that the value of the relevant real estate at the time of its transfer or acquisition shall be based on the standard market price. In such cases as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, it shall be calculated based on the actual market price at the time of the transfer or acquisition of the relevant asset. Article 170 (4) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 10977 of Dec. 31, 1982) provides that one of the cases prescribed by the Presidential Decree is one where the Commissioner of the National Tax Service can verify the actual market price at the time of transfer or acquisition of real estate, or other transactions similar to those prescribed by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service because he/she is deemed necessary to restrain speculative investment in real estate, and Article 72 (3) of the Regulations on Tax Treatment (amended by the National Tax Service Directive No. 980 of Jan. 26, 1987) provides that the following real estate was used as a false transaction:

Furthermore, although the so-called administrative rules, which are issued by a superior administrative agency upon the Plaintiff’s above argument, do not have external binding force with regard to the interpretation and application of the above laws and regulations, if the delegated administrative agency grants to a specific administrative agency the authority to determine specific matters of the pertinent laws and regulations without specifying the procedures or methods for exercising such authority, such administrative rules and regulations shall have the function to supplement the contents of the statutes in the form of administrative rules. Thus, such administrative rules and regulations shall have the effect as an order of regulation with external binding force in combination of the pertinent laws and regulations, unless they go beyond the bounds of the pertinent laws and regulations, and thus, if the above regulations and regulations are applied to a subordinate administrative agency with regard to the transaction, they shall have the authority to specify the specific matters of the pertinent laws and regulations and regulations, and thus, they shall not have any restrictions on the procedures or methods for the designation of the pertinent administrative agency and shall not be deemed to have been established in accordance with the delegation provisions of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act within the scope of 7th of the said Act.

Next, we examine the second argument of the plaintiff.

First, whether the plaintiff acquired the land of this case in a disguised manner as an actual user in good faith refers to the case where a workplace union or a local union constitutes a housing association under the Housing Construction Promotion Act and constructs and sells a house to members of the association, a disguised purchase of the housing association, or a disguised purchase of farmland and resale profits for the purpose of obtaining only purchase and resale profits, such as the case where a farmer or a farmer obtains a disguised purchase of farmland and resells the land. Thus, it is not recognized that the plaintiff acquired the land of this case by means of the defendant's pre-use of the pre-use of the land as above, and it does not constitute a disguised purchase of the land of this case. Considering the whole purport of Non-party 3's testimony and pleading without dispute over the establishment, the plaintiff acquired the land of this case as a means of saving rice and fishery products, and completed the registration of ownership transfer as above, among them, it is recognized that the plaintiff acquired the farmland of this case under the pre-sale and management of the farmland of this case for five years, and thus, it is not recognized that the plaintiff did not use the farmland of this case.

Then, as acknowledged earlier, the Defendant’s imposition of this case under Article 72(3)5 of the Tax Treatment Regulation is lawful, and the grounds for recognizing the Plaintiff as a speculative trader are large-scale land traders with a view to a real estate special investigation conducted by the Seoul regional tax office. The above tax treatment regulation, which was enforced at the time of the transfer of the land of this case, was not established by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service to designate a real estate transaction in a certain area as an speculative transaction in advance in accordance with the purpose of delegation under Article 170(4)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act. In addition, the Plaintiff did not sell the land of this case under a short-term sale without the intention of the Plaintiff, and it does not constitute a disguised sale by a disguised and fictitious person, and it does not constitute a case where the Plaintiff resells the land in this case without any proof as to the degree of resale gains. Moreover, it cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiff constitutes a large-scale land transaction with a view to a large scale of more than 50,00 square meters.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's taxation disposition of this case is unlawful because the transfer of the land of this case constitutes a transaction or speculation by acquiring real estate through a disguised transaction by an end user in good faith designated by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the cancellation is justified, and the costs of the lawsuit are determined as per Disposition at the defendant's expense as the losing party.

Judges Lee Jong-hee (Presiding Judge)