쟁점토지 관련 증빙을 통해 청구인이 쟁점토지를 미등기전매한 것으로 보이며 그 사업성이 인정되지 아니하므로 과세한 처분은 정당함 [국승]
early 2012 Middle 0500 ( October 18, 2012)
The claimant seems to have sold the land on the issue through the evidence related to the land, and the business feasibility of the land is not recognized, so the disposition imposed on the taxpayer is legitimate.
In full view of the sales contract, judgment, etc. submitted in relation to the land at issue, since the claimant seems to have sold the land at issue without registration, and it is judged to transfer the real estate temporarily for the purpose of resale profit without recognizing business feasibility and repetition due to sale related to sale and purchase. Therefore, the disposition imposing capital gains tax is reasonable
Article 88 of the Income Tax Act
2012Guhap10827 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax
LAA
Head of Sungnam Tax Office
July 24, 2013
October 16, 2013
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Cheong-gu Office
The Defendant’s imposition of the capital gains tax for the year 2002 against the Plaintiff on November 3, 201 and the imposition of the capital gains tax for the year 2003 shall be revoked.
1. Details of the disposition;
"A. According to the registry of 302 OO-dong 302 OE, 1,168 square meters prior to the same 303-2 OE, 115 m2 prior to the same 115 m2, and 139 m2 (hereinafter "the instant land"), the owner of this case was changed from 16 January 2003 to CC and KimD." (B) The head of Gangseo-gu District Tax Office obtained the instant land from HaE to the Plaintiff, and conducted an investigation on the instant tax evasion data that the Plaintiff acquired from OE-dong 30,000 m200 m2,000,000,000,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000,000 m2,000
C. On December 14, 2011, the Plaintiff appealed for a trial with the Tax Tribunal, but on December 2012.
"A decision of dismissal was rendered on 18.18. On the other hand, the defendant in the lawsuit of this case revoked ex officio the part concerning additional tax of the capital gains tax (hereinafter referred to as "the disposition of this case"), "OOOO of the capital gains tax for 2002, the transfer income tax for 2003, the transfer income tax for 2003" ("the disposition of this case"), "No dispute over the grounds for recognition"), Gap's statements (including the serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul's statements (including the serial number), Eul's statements (including the branch number), Eul's statements (hereinafter the same), and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The plaintiff's assertion
The plaintiff does not resell the land of this case to the non-CC et al., but merely mediates the land of this case as a broker and received a commission.
(b) Fact of recognition;
1) The grandchildren who acquired part of the instant land from the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking the return of unjust enrichment on the ground that the Plaintiff deceivings the Plaintiff to receive excessive sales amount (Seoul Central District Court 2009Gahap138722). During the said lawsuit, the grandchildren solicited the Plaintiff to purchase part of the instant land from the Plaintiff on an ordinary OOE, and the Plaintiff was clearly aware that the Plaintiff purchased the instant land from EOOE in the ordinary OOE.
2) According to the sales contract drawn up on November 21, 2002 between EE and the Plaintiff, the sales price for the instant land was set up as OOO, and EOG was set up with the introduction of KimG that the Plaintiff sold the instant land to OOO, which is an OO of the Plaintiff.
3) On the other hand, the transferee, including the FF, did not know at all the details of the transaction of the instant land, except for the purchase of the instant land by the FF on a flat basis, and did not know the cost details related to the transaction.
[Reasons for Recognition] Class A 2, 3, and Category B 3, 5, and 6
C. Determination
The following circumstances revealed according to the above facts, i.e., ① the Plaintiff was acting as an intermediary for the sales contract between EE and E and ECC, but E and E and E and E and 17 others appear to have been in charge of the transaction process of the instant land. ② If the Plaintiff acted as an intermediary for the transaction of the instant land, it would be reasonable to agree between E and E and E with the Plaintiff as to intermediary fees and transaction expenses. However, this agreement was not reached between the Plaintiff and E and 17 regarding the instant land in addition to the purchase of the instant land with EOO as the purchase price, and there was no agreement regarding the instant land in addition to the purchase of the instant land. ③ According to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff acquired OOO as the intermediary fee for the instant land, it is difficult to view the above amount as the intermediary fee for the Plaintiff merely because it is excessive to the extent that it occupies 1/4 of the purchase price, ④ The Plaintiff did not report the purchase price of the instant land to the Plaintiff as the intermediary fee and the Plaintiff’s sales contract.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.