Plaintiff, respondent, etc.

*

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 00,000,000 on April 20, 2015 against the Plaintiff was revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

A. On March 23, 2004, the Plaintiff sold ○○○○○○ Village 000 ○○ Village 000 apartment complex, aaa-dong bbb (hereinafter referred to as the “instant apartment”) to the headCC and YP, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the headCC and YP PP on May 3, 2004.

B. On May 30, 2004, the Plaintiff reported and paid KRW 000,000,000 to the Defendant with the transfer value of the apartment of this case as KRW 000,000.

C. On April 20, 2015, the Defendant corrected the tax base of the apartment of this case and imposed capital gains tax of KRW 000,000 (including additional tax) on the Plaintiff on April 20, 2015 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on July 3, 2015, but was dismissed on January 22, 2016, and was served with the notice on February 3, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 3 through 6, Eul evidence 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiff's assertion

At the time of the transfer of the apartment of this case, the Plaintiff was working at the Dong Office of the National Bank, but there was a question that the Plaintiff would give preferential treatment to the excessive holders of real estate for the purpose of restructuring within the bank, and thus, the apartment of this case was set at a lower level than the market price, and the transfer price at the time was KRW 00,000,000. Therefore, the disposition of this case was not only a disposition that misleads the facts, but also was illegal for the exclusion period of five years from the date of transfer.

2) The defendant's assertion

The Plaintiff: (a) sold the apartment of this case to the headCC and YP for KRW 000,000; (b) prepared a sales contract (so-called “so-called contract”) stating that the purchase price is reduced to KRW 00,000 in order to reduce capital gains tax burden; and (c) received KRW 00,000,000, the difference, which is the difference, in cash or check in order to avoid tracking the tax authorities. Therefore, the actual transfer price of the apartment of this case is KRW 00,000; and (d) the Plaintiff’s submission of false documentary evidence while reporting the transfer price under the transfer price at the time of filing a voluntary report on the transfer income tax of the apartment of this case, constitutes “Fraud or other unlawful act”

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) The amount clearly acknowledged that the Plaintiff received from the headCC or the PPP based on evidence out of the purchase price of the apartment of this case, and the details of the payment of the purchase price of the headCC and the PPP alleged by the Defendant are as listed below.

Date

Jinay

204.

3. 23;

00,000,000 won

3. 24.

00,000,000 won

The headCC asserts that he paid the down payment on March 24, 2004, and presented a certificate of transfer (No. 2) stating that he/she transferred the KRW 10 million to HaH (licensed Real Estate Agents).

4.7.

00,000,000 won

00,000,000 won

Account Transfer

4. 8.

00,000,000 won

00,000,000 won

Account Transfer

4. 10.

00,000,000 won

00,000,000 won

Account Transfer

4. 23.

00,000,000 won

4. 23.

00,000,000 won

00,000,000 won

Account Transfer

4. 23.

00,000,000 won

5.3.

00,000,000 won

00,000,000 won

Existing Lease Agreements Acceptance

5.4.

00,000,000 won

00,000,000 won

Account Transfer

5.4.

00,000,000 won

The claim that PPP was paid to the Plaintiff by withdrawing in cash and cash.

Date and Non Award

00,000,000 won

The claim that the headCC paid the Plaintiff in cash.

Total

00,000,000 won*

00,000,000 won

* The Plaintiff recognized on April 23, 2004 that it was received 00,000 won from the Pacific on April 23, 2004 in cash.

2) As the Plaintiff, headCC, and PEP did not prepare any balance of the apartment in this case on the remaining payment date agreed upon, the Plaintiff first completed the registration of ownership transfer of the apartment in this case to the headCC, YP, and the headCC, and PEP agreed to obtain a loan as security and pay the remainder to the Plaintiff. On May 3, 2004, the Plaintiff had completed the registration of ownership transfer of the apartment in this case to the headCC, PEP, and PEP. On the same day, PEP concluded a mortgage contract with the maximum debt amount of the apartment in this case, the amount of the instant apartment in question was KRW 00 million,000,000, the debtor's PEP, and the community credit cooperative in charge of the settlement of mortgage on May 4, 2004.

3) On May 4, 2004, YP deposited KRW 00,000,000 at the △△ branch of the △△ Bank in △△△△△, which was deposited out in cash, and KRW 00,000,000 was issued as a check. The said check was issued on May 6, 2004, but it cannot be known that it was discarded after five years from the payment date and discarded. Meanwhile, at around that time, the Plaintiff was working at the △△ Bank Weight point.

4) According to the real estate market price data of the △△ Bank in 2004, among ○○○○○○ 000 ○○ Village00 apartment complex, the lower average sale price of the apartment of this case, the size of which is the same as that of the apartment of this case, is KRW 00,000,000, and the average sale price is KRW 000,000,000.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 5, 7, Eul evidence 2 to 4, the result of a financial information inquiry into the president of the court of first instance with respect to the President of the National Bank of the Republic of Korea, the part of the testimony (except for the part not trusted in the following), the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) As to the transfer value of the apartment of this case

In full view of the following circumstances known from the above facts, since the plaintiff can be recognized that the apartment of this case was transferred to the headCC and YP in this case, the plaintiff's disposition of this case based on the premise that the transfer value of the apartment of this case is the above amount is legitimate (in the evidence No. 2 of this case, a copy of cash storage certificate exists, but the headCC does not explain the reason that the amount stated in the cash storage certificate is inconsistent with the balance of the apartment of this case, and it seems that the actual plaintiff could not completely memory as to whether the cash storage certificate was paid to the plaintiff as stated in the cash storage certificate, in light of the fact that the testimony of the witness SCC alone was recognized as the existence of existence and authenticity of the original cash storage certificate, or that the transfer amount is 00,000 won by evidence other than the existence of cash storage certificate, so long as it is recognized as not affecting the conclusion of this case).

① Of the amount of KRW 00,000,000 withdrawn on May 4, 2004 from the PP account, KRW 00,000,000, the check was presented at the △ Bank located in △△ branch. In light of the fact that at the time the Plaintiff worked at the seat of the National Bank name, it is reasonable to deem that all of the above KRW 00,000,000 were paid to the Plaintiff. Moreover, in addition to the sum of KRW 00,000,000, the Plaintiff received payment in cash, and KRW 00,000,000, the sum of the amounts that the Plaintiff received is KRW 00,000,00.

② The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff could be selected as eligible for voluntary retirement according to the property holding status at the time, and that the purchase price was low in order to sell the instant apartment promptly. However, even if such circumstance exists, selling apartment at a lower price than the market price of 00,000,000 won to a person who has no relationship with him/her.

2) As to whether the exclusion period has expired

According to Article 26-2(1)1 and 3 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 the lapse of a period of five years from the date on which the national tax is assessable, but a national tax may be imposed for ten years in cases where a taxpayer evades the national tax by fraud or other unlawful means. The term “Fraud or other unlawful means” refers to a deceptive act that makes it impossible or considerably difficult to impose and collect taxes, or other active acts that make it difficult for the taxpayer to do so. In determining the tax base on the amount reported by the taxpayer, preparing and submitting a false contract in which the taxpayer under-reported the amount of the tax return was made to grant credibility in the amount of the return and conceal the actual transaction amount, thereby making it considerably difficult to impose and collect taxes by actively deception (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Du1315, Oct. 11, 2012).

In full view of the facts acknowledged earlier and the purport of the entire pleadings as indicated in the evidence Nos. 2 and 5, the Plaintiff’s act of preparing and submitting a false double sales contract stating the false amount of credibility while filing a return on the transfer value of the apartment of this case at KRW 000,000 on March 23, 2004, while reporting the transfer value of the apartment of this case to the Defendant at KRW 000,000,000, together with a false real estate sales contract (Evidence No. 2). In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s act of preparing and submitting together a false double sales contract stating the transfer value in order to conceal the actual transaction value by actively deceptive act constitutes “Fraud or other unlawful act” which significantly makes it difficult to impose and collect taxes, and as a result, the period of exclusion of imposition of the transfer income tax of this case was 10 years prior to the expiration of the imposition period of the transfer income tax of this case on the part of the Plaintiff’s apartment of this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, so the defendant's appeal is accepted, and the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as per Disposition.