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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 0,00,000 of the global income tax of KRW 0,000,000,000, which was paid to the Plaintiff on December 10, 2013, is revoked.

A. Sale of the Plaintiff’s husband’s house

(i) sales of primary housing;

On February 207, 200-2 site No. 0000.00 square meters (hereinafter “the instant land”) in Ulsan-dong, Ulsan-dong, the Plaintiff’s husband, entered into a sales contract on November 17, 2007 with KimB on the instant land and housing as of November 2007, when the construction was completed, while the apartment house (hereinafter “the instant one house”) was newly constructed on the leased land on the land (hereinafter “the instant land”). KimB completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant land on November 20, 207 and the registration of ownership preservation on the instant one.

The headA reported and paid the transfer income tax only on the land of this case in relation to the transfer of the land of this case and the housing.

(ii) sales of secondary housing;

The head of the Dong shall, on August 31, 2007, acquire ownership on August 31, 2007, the land of 000-0 square meters in Ulsan-dong defense Dong-dong 000 square meters.

(hereinafter referred to as "the two lands of this case") newly constructed a multi-family house (hereinafter referred to as "the two houses of this case") on May 6, 2008, which was prior to the completion of the approval for use, entered into a sales contract for the land of this case and the two houses. On June 3, 2008, LandCC completed the registration for ownership transfer and the registration for ownership preservation for the two houses of this case on June 3, 2008.

The headA reported and paid the transfer income tax only on the land of this case 2 in relation to the transfer of the land of this case and the housing.

3) On November 19, 2007, the Republic of Korea: (a) registered the instant land as a residential building construction business; (b) closed the business on February 28, 201; (c) on July 1, 2007, 00,000 U.S. (0 dong,000) as a housing rental business; and (d) on July 1, 2007, 2007, the Republic of Korea reported the global income tax on the said house rental income and wage income from 2007 to 2012; and (c) was working in a DD corporation.

B. The plaintiff's sale of housing

1) On December 18, 2009, the Plaintiff purchased a multi-family house (hereinafter referred to as “three houses of this case”) on the land of this case after purchasing the land of this case 000-0.0 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “the land of this case” in combination with the land 1 and 2, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract for the land of this case and the three houses of this case on December 15, 2010, which was prior to the approval for use (hereinafter referred to as “the housing of this case”), and newly constructed a multi-family house on the land of this case (hereinafter referred to as “three houses of this case”), and entered into a sales contract for the land of this case and the three houses of this case on December 23, 2010.

The Plaintiff reported and paid the transfer income tax only on the land of this case 3 in relation to the transfer of land and housing of this case.

2) The Plaintiff was not registered as a business operator or paid the comprehensive income tax with respect to housing sales, etc.

(c) Correction and notification of global income tax;

On December 10, 2013, the Plaintiff and headA deemed that they were engaged in the housing construction and sales business, and on December 10, 2013, the Defendant corrected and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 0,000,000 global income tax for the year 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition on the imposition of penalty tax without filing a report”).

(d) Implementation of the previous trial procedures;

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an objection on February 26, 2014, but not accepted the objection. On May 23, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed by the Tax Tribunal on December 11, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The legality of disposition.

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff’s transfer of the instant three houses to the Plaintiff prior to approval for use was merely the aggravation of the financial situation, and the sale of the housing was only one time and cannot be seen as the Housing Construction and Sales Business Act. Notwithstanding the fact that the Plaintiff’s transfer of the instant three houses cannot be seen as having evaded national taxes due to fraud or other unlawful act, the Defendant’s imposition of penalty tax without filing a report by applying the exclusion period of 10

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 3 is as listed in the "relevant Acts and subordinate statutes".

C. Determination

1) Whether it constitutes business income

A) The business income subject to income tax refers to the income accrued from a business, which is a social activity that is continuously and repeatedly conducted in an independent position for profit-making purposes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du8430, Sept. 9, 2010). Moreover, whether the income from the transfer of real estate is business income or capital gains under the Income Tax Act shall be determined according to ordinary social norms, taking into account whether the transfer is aimed at profit-making and whether the transfer is made in light of the transferor’s real estate acquisition and holding status, whether the transfer is made, the scale, frequency, mode, the other party, etc. of the transfer, and whether the transfer is made for profit-making purposes and the continuity and repetition of business to the extent that it can be seen as business activities. In making such determination, not only the transfer of real estate concerned but also all the circumstances before and after the time the transfer took place throughout the entire real estate possessed by the transferor (see, e., Supreme Court Decision 9Du5

B) In light of the following circumstances, i.e., the Plaintiff and the headAA are marital relations, the period of marriage is reasonable, and the formation of principal property is expected to have been carried out by the headA, regardless of their names, the new construction and sale of the instant housing is deemed to have been jointly carried out by the Plaintiff and the headAA. ② Although the Plaintiff only sold the instant three housing, it is only one time for the Plaintiff to sell and purchase the instant housing, it is only one time for the Plaintiff to sell and sell the instant housing, but before the Plaintiff’s above sale and purchase took place, it would be reasonable to determine the business activities of the Plaintiff and the headA based on the entire purchase and sale activities for the instant housing, and ③ If so, the Plaintiff and the headA have sold the unregistered buildings over three times in total for four years, and the Plaintiff’s sale and purchase of the instant housing itself constitutes a new and continuous sale of the Plaintiff’s income for the purpose of generating profits from the sale and purchase of the housing itself, the Plaintiff’s sale and sale of the housing in this case can not be seen to the extent.

2) Regarding exclusion period of imposition

A) According to Articles 26-2(1)1 and 47-2 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 12848, Dec. 23, 2014) and Article 12-2(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes, where a taxpayer evades national taxes or obtains a refund or deduction due to “Fraud or any other unlawful act” as prescribed in each subparagraph of Article 3(6) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, the exclusion period of the imposition of national taxes is extended to 10 years. In addition, where a taxpayer fails to report the tax base of national tax under tax-related Acts by the statutory due date of return due to such act, the amount equivalent to 40/100 of the calculated tax amount, etc. is imposed as additional tax. In this regard, the term “Fraud or other unlawful act” means an act falling under any of the following subparagraphs, which makes or makes it impossible or considerably difficult to impose or collect taxes, and prepares false books, evidence, documents, and false entry of books, books and records, manipulation or management of tax invoices, or 4 of transactions.

“Fraud or other unlawful act” in the crime of evading tax under Article 3(1) and (6) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act means an act which enables the evasion of tax, i.e., a deceptive scheme or other unlawful act which makes it impossible or considerably difficult to impose and collect taxes. Therefore, it does not constitute merely a failure to file a tax return under the tax law or making a false tax return without accompanying other acts, but it does not constitute the mere failure to file a tax return or making a false tax return. However, in cases where the circumstances indicate active concealment, such as failure to file a tax return or underreporting, and intentionally failing to enter revenues or sales in the account book, etc., it may be recognized that the imposition and collection of taxes are impossible or remarkably difficult (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do9871, Jun. 14, 2012). Whether the active concealment intention can be objectively seen as objectively revealed, not only whether the basic account book stating revenues or sales, but also the method and method of filing a false tax return or the details of a false tax return, etc.

B) In light of the above provisions and legal principles, the global income tax at issue in this case refers to the following circumstances: (i) the taxpayer voluntarily returns the tax base and tax amount to the third party to determine the tax liability; (ii) the tax authority is difficult to impose taxes upon arrival of the omission; (iii) the Plaintiff and the headA did not report the tax on the construction and transfer of the instant house; and (iv) the owner of the building under the Building Act did not place a business registration for the housing construction and sales business; and (ii) the owner of the building orders construction, substantial repair and alteration of the building, installation of building installations, or construction of structures, or the owner of the building by setting up a field manager, who does not report the construction of the instant house under Article 2(1)12 of the Building Act or the transfer of the building to the third party; and (iv) the Plaintiff and the head of the building and the purchaser did not objectively acquire the Plaintiff’s new construction of the instant house and the owner of the instant land for the purpose of transferring the housing to the third party without reporting the use of the relevant land under the tax law.

3) Therefore, the instant disposition that the Defendant imposed penalty tax on the Plaintiff by applying the exclusion period of 10 years to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff was evading national tax due to an unlawful act despite having obtained business income through the transfer of the instant three houses.

3. Conclusion

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