하나의 거래임에도 형식적으로 중간거래를 개입시킨 행위가 가장행위에 해당하는 경우에는 실질에 따라 과세할 수 있음[국승]
Suwon District Court-2016-Gu Group-8160 ( March 31, 2017)
Cho Jae-2016 Jeon-631,632 (2016.02)
In the case of a transaction which is a single transaction, it can be taxed according to the substance if it constitutes a disguised act.
The form of transaction chosen by a taxpayer shall not be denied without permission, but where there are special circumstances to regard it as a disguised act, it may be taxed pursuant to Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes.
Article 14 (Real Taxation)
2017Nu56379 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax
AAA foreign1
00. Head of tax office
October 26, 2017
December 14, 2017
1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
Cheong-gu Office
The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The Defendant’s imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 136,266,50 for the year 2013, which was made to Plaintiff AA on August 18, 2015, and the imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 149,301,850 for the year 2013, which was made to Plaintiff BB on August 19, 2015, shall be revoked.
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
This court's decision is based on Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the reasons for this court's decision are the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance except for adding some contents and adding some contents
Parts to be removed or added.
○ In the second sentence of the second sentence of the judgment of the first instance, the "396-27" in the fifth sentence of the second sentence shall be deemed to be "396-28".
○ The following shall be added to the first sentence of the first instance judgment:
D. CCC transferred the instant land to DD1 on October 29, 2013.
The third part of the judgment of the court of first instance is "..." and the third part of the judgment of the court of first instance is "...." and the third part is ".....".
○ The third and fourth instances of the first instance court's judgment "the first land of this case" are "the second land of this case".
○ The fifth and seventh execution of the judgment of the first instance court "the lowest value" is high with "acquisition value".
○ The following shall be added to the 7th judgment of the first instance court, the 3 to 4th judgment.
(E) According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 8 submitted at the appellate court and the testimony of the EE witness at the appellate court, the plaintiffs requested EE to review the sale price, design, and revenue and expenditure analysis, etc. of the land No. 1 in relation to the development of the land No. 2 in this case, and EE to review the sale price, sale price, sale price, etc. through FF, the president of the EE. However, since there was no request from the competent administrative agency for the combination of the land No. 1 in this case and its surrounding land or development activities, it is difficult to find out whether the above sale price, sale price, etc. of the land No. 1 in this case was a serious review for real development activities. Furthermore, considering that there was a significant difference between the land No. 1 and the land No. 2 in publicly known land No. 1 in advance and the land No. 2 in the same price, it is difficult to view that the plaintiffs transferred the land No. 2 in this case between the plaintiffs and the land No. 1 in this case, or transfer price of the appraisal price of this case. Da. 2.
2. Conclusion
Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed in entirety due to the lack of grounds.