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

Cheong-gu Office

The imposition of the capital gains tax and its additional tax on October 0, 2013 rendered by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on October 0, 2013 is revoked.

"A. 1) The Director of the Regional Tax Office of PPPB issued a prior notice of taxation of the capital gains tax for the year 2003 on October 12, 2008, to the Director of the Regional Tax Office of PPPB filed a prior notice of taxation of the capital gains tax for the year 2003, on October 26, 2008; the Director of the Regional Tax Office of PPPB filed a prior notice of pre-assessment with the Director of the Regional Tax Office of PPB on October 12, 2008; the Director of the Regional Tax Office of PPB filed a prior notice of pre-assessment on October 26, 2008, alleging that he was not the actual owner of the instant land; and the Director of the Regional Tax Office of PPB filed a prior notice of taxation for the actual owner of the instant land by re-auditing the tax base and tax amount to the actual owner of the instant land on October 26, 2008.

나. 1) 그 후 재조사결과 PP지방국세청장은, 이 사건 토지는 원고와 김DD이 공동으로 매수하여 전BB에게 명의신탁한 것이라고 판단하고, 매도대금 OOOO원을 사용금액 비율로 안분하여 원고의 양도금액을 OOOO원, 김DD의 양도금액을 OOOO원으로 정하여 피고와 QQ세무서장에게 과세자료통보를 했다.

2) 이에 2009. 0. 19. 피고는 원고에게 OOOO원의, QQ세무서장은 김DD에게 OOOO원의 각 양도소득세를 부과했다.

C. 1) On October 26, 2009, KimD decided on October 26, 2009 that the land of this case was owned by the director of the PPP regional tax office, that the land of this case was owned by the plaintiff alone, and that the director of the Busan regional tax office would re-examine the actual owner of the land of this case on October 0, 2009 and correct the tax base and tax amount according to the result.

2) 그 후 재조사결과 PP지방국세청장은, 이 사건 토지는 김DD 주장과 달리 김DD 단독 소유라고 판단하고, QQ세무서장에게 그러한 내용의 재조사결과를 통보했다.

라. 이에 QQ세무서장은 2009. 7. 31. 김DD에게, 이 사건 토지의 양도에 따른 2003년도 귀속 양도소득세를 OOOO원에서 OOOO원으로 감액하는 것으로 경정했다(재조사결과 양도가액은 OOOO원 정도 증가했으나, 취득가액과 필요경비가 더 많이 증가함에 따라 양도소득금액이 OOOO원 정도 줄어드는 결과가 되어 양도소득세가 감액되었다).

마. 김DD은 이 사건 토지의 양도에 관한 양도소득세 부과에 대해 이 사건 토지가 원고 단독 소유임을 이유로 2011. 1. 3. 부산지방법원에 그 취소를 구하는 소를 제기했다(2011구합21). 그 결과 부산지방법원에서는 김DD이 이 사건 토지의 단독 소유자라고 볼 수 없다는 이유로 2011. 9. 22. 김DD에 대한 위 양도소득세 부과처분을 취소하는 판결을 선고했고, 이에 QQ세무서장이 항소했으나 그 항소심인 부산고등법원에 서도 김DD이 아닌 원고가 이 사건 토지의 단독 소유자이고 그 양도차익도 원고에게 귀속되었다는 이유로 2012. 7. 27. 항소기각 판결을 선고했다(2011누OOOO).

" 바. 위 판결에 따라 QQ세무서장은 2012. 9. 27. 김DD에 대한 위 양도소득세 부과처분을 취소했고, 피고는 이 사건 토지의 양도에 관하여 원고의 2003년 귀속 양도소득세 및 그 가산세를 합계 OOOO원으로 경정한 후 2013. 6. 1. 원고에게 위 금액 중 기존에 통지한 OOOO원을 뺀 나머지 OOOO원을 2003년 귀속 양도소득세 및 그 가산세로 부과했다(이하이 사건 처분'이라 한다).", 사. 이에 원고는 2013. 7. 18. 조세심판원에 심판청구를 했으나 2013. 10. 15. 기각되었다.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. The exclusion period of imposition of capital gains tax on the transfer of the instant land is up to May 31, 201, which was seven years from the day following May 31, 2004, which was the expiration date of the reporting period of the relevant tax base. As such, the instant disposition was made on June 1, 201, which was subsequent to the expiration of the exclusion period, and is unlawful.

B. Since the instant land is jointly owned by the Plaintiff and KimD, the instant disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff alone owns is unlawful.

3. Determination

(a) Whether the exclusion period is expired;

(1) According to Article 26-2(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 7329, Jan. 5, 2005; hereinafter the same), a national tax may not be imposed after seven years from the date on which the national tax is assessable if a taxpayer fails to file a tax base return by the statutory due date of return (Article 26-2(1) of the same Act). However, in cases where a taxpayer evades a national tax or obtains a refund or deduction by fraudulent or other unlawful means, it may not be imposed after ten years from the date on which the national tax is assessable (Article 1(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes). Here, the term “Fraud and other unlawful acts” refers to a deceptive act which makes it impossible or considerably difficult to impose and collect taxes, and it does not constitute a mere failure to file a tax return under the tax law or a false sentence without accompanying any other acts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013OO., Supreme Court Decision 2013).

① As seen below, the instant land is owned by the Plaintiff alone. ② On October 0, 2002, the Plaintiff purchased the instant land from OOOOB and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of her pro-JapaneseB, and sold the instant land to OOB on October 00, 2003, the Plaintiff reported the transfer income tax base under the former B’s name and reported its sale price to OOOB.

③ In the process of paying capital gains tax on the instant land, the Plaintiff prepared and submitted a false sales contract in which the sales price is less than the actual sales price.

3) As such, the Plaintiff made a report on capital gains tax by lending the name of a friendship, purchasing and transferring the instant land, and then reducing the sale price in that name, and prepared and submitted a false sales contract that lowers the sale price in that process.

In light of these circumstances, regardless of the Plaintiff’s act of making a false statement to the actual owner of the land of this case or ordering Kim E or FF to make a false statement, the Plaintiff’s act alone constitutes a deceptive scheme or other affirmative act that significantly makes it difficult for the tax authority to exercise its imposition authority (see Supreme Court Decision 2012DuOOO), i.e., fraud or other unlawful act (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Du200, Oct. 11, 2012). Thus, the exclusion period of imposition of capital gains tax on the transfer of the land of this case is ten years from the date on which the relevant national tax can be imposed pursuant to Article 26-2(1)1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes. The date on which capital gains tax on the transfer of the land of this case may be imposed is the lawful disposition of this case, and Article 12-3(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19893, Feb. 28, 2007>

B. Whether the plaintiff is solely owned

As seen above-A-2, the instant land is owned by the Plaintiff alone. This is apparent in light of the following relevant litigation processes:

즉 앞서 본 바와 같이 김DD이 QQ세무서장을 상대로 이 사건 토지의 양도에 관한 양도소득세 부과에 대해 그 취소를 구하는 소송을 제기했고, 그 항소심에서는 이 사건 토지가 검정삼이 아난 원고의 단독 소유임을 이유로 김DD에 대한 양도소득세 부과처분을 취소하는 판결을 선고했다. 위 소송이 법원에서 진행되고 있다는 사실은 그 항소심에서 QQ세무서장의 소송고지 신청으로 원고에게 고지되었고(갑 제9호증), 원고는 위 소송에서 증인으로 채택되었으나 출석하지 않고 진술서를 제출했다.

As such, considering the circumstances that the Plaintiff participated in the above lawsuit and had the opportunity to sufficiently dispute against the owner of the land of this case, and that the Plaintiff did not submit evidence to reverse the outcome of the lawsuit in this case, it is reasonable to deem that the land of this case is the sole ownership of the Plaintiff, as recognized in the judgment of the above lawsuit.

Therefore, the instant disposition based on the premise that the instant land is owned solely by the Plaintiff is lawful.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.