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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 668,550,480 (including additional tax) for the Plaintiff on June 23, 2015 shall be revoked.

A. The 00 Dong District Housing Association (hereinafter referred to as the "Association") delegated all of the affairs related to the above project to the 00 Industrial Development Co., Ltd. on February 28, 2003, where the 00-dong District Housing Association (hereinafter referred to as the "Association President") was established around April 2002 for the purpose of constructing apartment houses in the 00-Gu 000 dong and 000 dong, Seoul for the purpose of constructing apartment houses.

B. Between 00 on June 30, 2003 and 00 on June 30, 2003, the Mutual Association concluded a sales contract stating that “the Mutual Association purchases from 00,000,000 m2 and 81 m2,000 m2,000 m2 (hereinafter “the instant real property”).”

C. The Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her she was

D. Since then, between the plaintiff and the association, the sales contract of August 9, 2005, stating that the 'right 00' of the real estate of this case shall be sold to the association in KRW 180,000,000,000, the sales contract of this case and the 's 'right 00' shall be sold to the association in KRW 580,000,000, and the 20,000,000,000 shall be given to the commercial building as a special agreement and the right to occupy the apartment shall be given to the association.'

E. A cooperative, on October 20, 2005, entered KRW 180,000,000 in the sales contract as of August 9, 2005, entered the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the cooperative on the instant real estate. On October 28, 2005, the cooperative paid KRW 580,000,000, which was entered as the sales price under the instant sales contract to the Plaintiff.

F. In relation to the purchase of the instant real estate by the cooperative, the head of the cooperative was able to perform the terms of the instant special agreement on May 10, 2006 with the authority of 00, and instead, the head of the cooperative was able to pay 400,000,000 won or more due to the circumstances on the part of the cooperative. It was also drawn up a letter of performance (a evidence No. 3; hereinafter referred to as the "certificate of performance of this case") with the content that "40,000,000 won was regularly received as the purchase price of the instant real estate," and there was also a receipt (a evidence No. 4; hereinafter referred to as "the receipt of this case").

G. The Defendant: (a) was notified by the director of the tax office that “the instant real estate was trusted to the right 00, and the actual owner is the Plaintiff; (b) on August 9, 2005, the sales price of the instant real estate was KRW 180,000 under the sales contract as of August 9, 2005, not KRW 580,000 under the sales contract as of August 9, 2005; and (c) was KRW 980,000,000 in total, and KRW 400,000 under the sales contract as of June 23, 2015, the Defendant imposed penalty tax (including penalty tax) on the Plaintiff on June 23, 2015 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

H. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on September 9, 2015, and the Tax Tribunal dismissed the said appeal on August 28, 2016.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 7, 9 through 13, Eul evidence 1 and 2

(including serial number), the result of the inquiry of the chief of the association of this court, the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff did not receive KRW 400,000,000 as stated in the instant performance memorandum from the Cooperative. Of the instant performance memorandum, the part of the instant performance memorandum is intended to pay for the Plaintiff’s efforts to facilitate the joint housing construction project promoted by the Cooperative while serving as a director of the Cooperative. Thus, the Plaintiff received the said KRW 400,000,000, even if it was merely for the Plaintiff to receive the said KRW 400,000.

Even if the above money is a contingent and temporary income, it cannot be said that it is a transfer price of the real estate in this case.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Whether the Plaintiff was paid KRW 400,000,000 from the partnership

In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff received additional payment of KRW 400,00,000 in accordance with the instant performance memorandum, and the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was no receipt of such payment is without merit.

A) Although a partnership entered into a contract to purchase the instant real estate from the former 00, the Plaintiff and the competent 00 agreed to acquire the purchaser status of the partnership under the above sales contract, register the instant real estate in the name of 00, and sell it again to the partnership. The Plaintiff’s receipt of a total of KRW 980,000,000 from the partnership constitutes a juristic act contrary to social order under Article 103 of the Civil Act and thus becomes null and void (the first instance judgment: Seoul Western District Court Decision 2012Ga3722, Dec. 28, 2012; the Seoul Western District Court Decision 2013Na10729, Dec. 26, 2013; and the Seoul High Court Decision 200,000 won under the sales contract of the instant case and the Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 580,000,00 from the partnership was recognized as being paid not only to the Plaintiff’s account but also to the Plaintiff’s account.

B) In the civil litigation related to the above paragraph (a) above, the attorney of the plaintiff and 00 "the plaintiff" led to the confession that he received a total of KRW 980,00,000 from the purchase price of the real estate of this case, and the plaintiff appointed the representative director of the 00 industrial development corporation, who is entrusted with all the affairs related to the business by the union, on behalf of the plaintiff and 00, and accordingly, he did not deliver the plaintiff and 00's position, and accordingly, he did not perform the lawsuit. However, in the litigation procedure, it is difficult to readily understand that a false confession is made by the legal representative regardless of the plaintiff and 00's intention, and the plaintiff did not present any objective evidence to confirm the circumstances like the plaintiff's assertion.

C) The representative director Kim 00 of the 00 Industrial Development Co., Ltd. testified to the effect that he was present as a witness in the civil litigation related to the above paragraph (a) and prepared the receipts of this case with the Plaintiff’s consent. Considering that the receipts of this case stated that “400,000,000 won was regularly received as the purchase price of the real estate in the instant case,” and that there is a possibility that criminal punishment and capital gains tax burden may be increased in the course of false accounting cooperation, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Plaintiff, who has a right to claim for the purchase price against the partnership, allowed the Plaintiff to make a false receipt for the convenience of accounting only without receiving money from the partnership.

D) Meanwhile, Kim 00 testified to the effect that "the Seoul High Court was present as a witness in the case of damages compensation, etc., 2010Na109529, and testified to the effect that "the receipts and substitute slips were falsely prepared on the wind faced with difficulties such as unexpected additional costs in the course of the land purchase business for the association." However, there was no testimony that Kim 00 specifically prepared the receipts of this case in a fraudulent manner. However, there was no objective data on whether or not additional costs incurred by the association or on the amount of the association's unexpected additional costs, and the above testimony alone cannot be readily concluded that the receipts of this case were falsely prepared.

E) On August 30, 2006, the Plaintiff purchased 2 lots of land, including KRW 1,400,000,000 on August 30, 200, Incheon 00, and KRW 1,400,000. The actual amount of the purchase price to be paid by the Plaintiff was 90,000,000, deducting the seller’s loan obligation of KRW 500,000 from the seller’s loan obligation of KRW 1,40,000,000, which was actually paid by the Plaintiff. This was 400,000,000,000 as the purchase price under the instant sales contract, and the payment agreement amount of KRW 40,00,000,000 on the instant performance letter, which was the sum of KRW 980,00,000,000 and KRW 200,000,000 as 20,000,000.

There is no explanation on how to procure them by objective data.

2) Whether the Plaintiff’s KRW 400,000,000 received constitutes the price for the transfer of the instant real estate

Meanwhile, in light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s receipt of KRW 400,000 from the partnership was part of the transfer price of the real estate of this case, and therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

A) The instant sales contract provides that the matters of the instant special agreement (not only KRW 580,00,000, but also KRW 20,000, a commercial building is granted occupancy right) may be entered in the sales contract of this case. The contents are similar to the forms and contents of the sales contract made between the association and some other sellers, as seen below, and it is difficult to readily understand as follows, in preparing the instant sales contract, which is a disposal document related to the sale of the instant real estate, to set up a separate disposal document to pay for the Plaintiff’s business activities that are not related to the instant real estate, instead of setting up the separate disposal document, it is very rare to clearly understand as the special agreement.

○ 매도인 김@@(갑 제8호증의1)

Special terms and conditions: The 20th priority of sale in commercial buildings shall be granted to the purchaser. The transfer income tax shall be borne by the purchaser.

○ 매도인 유@@(갑 제8호증의3)

특약사항: 상가분양권을 유@@에게 주기로 한다. 양도소득세 발생시 매수인이 책임지기로 한다.

○ 매도인 김@@수(갑 제8호증의4)

특약사항: 매수인은 @@@@교회에 아파트 1채를 주기로 한다.

B) As examined below, the contents stated in the instant performance memorandum are premised on the premise that the instant special agreement is related to the sale and purchase of the instant real estate.

"The upper (or 00) is the land owner of 00 Dong-dong 000 in Seoul, 00-dong 000, which is entitled to take occupancy rights of 20 commercial buildings and apartment houses at the time of the party union's land contract, but the union has failed to carry out its promise due to the circumstances of the party union, but it has decided to compensate for 40 million won in cash to the above person."

C) As mentioned earlier, the receipt of this case, in which the right 00 was drawn up as the receiver, stated that “400,000,000 won was regularly received as the purchase price of the instant real estate.”

D) There is no direct and objective data to support that the Plaintiff had been engaged in certain activities in a specific position in relation to the business that the Plaintiff promoted by the partnership, and was entitled to receive payments from the partnership amounting to KRW 400,000,000.

E) Meanwhile, in the relevant civil litigation (Seoul Western District Court Decision 2012Gahap3722) recognized the fact that the part which was individually borrowed and repaid from the Plaintiff around February 2006 was about KRW 400,000,000. However, Kim 00 appeared as a witness of the pertinent civil litigation and testified to the effect that "the amount of KRW 400,000,000 on the execution letter of the pertinent civil litigation shall not be related to the personal debt of the Plaintiff," while Kim 00 did not appear to have been subject to criminal punishment after having filed a complaint from the partnership on the ground that it was arbitrarily prepared by the representative director of the industrial development corporation in charge of the business affairs entrusted by the partnership, taking advantage of the status of the representative director of the industrial development corporation in charge of the business affairs of the Plaintiff.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.