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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of capital gains tax OOOO on May 8, 2013 by the Plaintiff is revoked.

(1) On April 26, 2002, the Plaintiff: (a) concluded a sales contract with 20 OE-dong 492-1 m23m2 (hereinafter “instant land”); and (b) paid 20OOE-200 won for the remainder of the down payment, May 14, 2002, and the remainder of the 20OE-200 m20 m20 m200 m200 m20 m200 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m3 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m30 m20 m20 m20 m2.

Facts without any dispute, Gap's 1 through 4, Eul's 1 through 6 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition is unlawful for the following reasons.

1) The Plaintiff and KimE acquired the instant land from the GangwonB to the OE, and subsequently acquired gains from transfer of each OOE to the AOE and transfer to the AOE, respectively. However, on March 2004, the Plaintiff was merely an OOE of the FOE and the transfer margin that it acquired to the AOE and 0D, which was a matter of the fact that the her husband FOF was found and the unregistered resale was conducted by the AOCC’s husband around March 2004.

2) Article 27(1)2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that, in principle, if the State’s right to collect national taxes is not exercised within five years from the time it can be exercised, the extinctive prescription is complete. The five-year extinctive prescription of the Defendant’s right to collect capital gains tax on the transfer of this case has already expired at the

3) According to Article 26-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, in cases where a taxpayer evades a national tax, or obtains a refund or deduction by fraudulent or other unlawful means, the exclusion period is ten years from the date on which the national tax can be imposed. In cases where a taxpayer fails to file a tax base return within the statutory due date of return, the exclusion period is seven years from the date on which the relevant national tax may be imposed. Since the seller and the purchaser completed an interim omission registration under the agreement between the seller and the purchaser does not constitute fraud or other unlawful acts, the exclusion period of the transfer income tax on the transfer of

Even if not, the exclusion period of transfer income tax should be calculated from the following day after the end of the month following the month in which the transfer date belongs, and the disposition of this case was imposed after the lapse of ten years thereafter.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

"1) The rightCC (her husband) and 00D demanded the Plaintiff to return part of the profits from the resale, referring to the fact that the Plaintiff was unregistered, and the Plaintiff paid OOO on March 16, 2004, and the remaining OOOOO members were issued a receipt (Evidence No. 6) stating that the Plaintiff would pay to the purchaser for the proceeds from resale of the land in this case and receive the receipt (Evidence No. 6) by June 30, 2004; 2), 00D did not pay the remainder of the agreed OO20 on April 26, 2011, 2000, 2000, 3000,0000,000,0000,000,000,0000,000,000,0000,000,0000,000,0000,000,000,000).

D. Determination

1) Determination on the first argument

The following circumstances revealed by the above facts and evidence, namely, ① the Plaintiff purchased the land of this case from Gangnam to OB, and KangB agreed to allow the Plaintiff to transfer to its designated person at the time of receipt of any balance. ② The Plaintiff sold the land of this case to KOD on May 13, 2002 and received the full payment of the purchase price until June 30, 2002. The Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer under its own name and completed the registration of transfer; ③ The Plaintiff’s right to purchase and the transfer of 0DD was not required to return part of the transfer margin if the Plaintiff were to take account of the non-registered pre-sale issues, ③ the Plaintiff’s withdrawal of the purchase price of this case from 2004 and the Plaintiff’s withdrawal of the purchase price of this case to 00 OD 204, and ④ the Plaintiff’s withdrawal of the purchase price of this case to 200 OD 204, and the Plaintiff did not pay the remainder of the purchase price of this case to 2000 OD 204.

2) Judgment on the second argument

Article 27 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that the State's right to collect national taxes shall be extinguished if it is not exercised for five years from the time it is possible to exercise such right. In this case, Article 12-4 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the time when it is possible to exercise the State's right to collect national taxes under paragraph (1) shall be determined by the Presidential Decree. Article 27 (3) of the same Act provides that "the time when it is possible to exercise the State's right to collect national taxes" means any of the following days. In the case of a national tax for which the tax base and return are fixed by subparagraph 1, the following day of the statutory due date for payment of tax shall be the national tax, and in the case of a government's determination of tax base and tax amount under subparagraph 2, the following day of the due date for payment of tax shall be the tax, and in the case of a capital gains tax which is the method of return, the taxpayer's tax base and tax amount of capital gains tax shall be extinguished by the right to collect national taxes.

3) Judgment on the third argument

A) Whether the exclusion period of 10 years is applicable

Article 26-2 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides the limitation period for the imposition of national taxes. Article 26-2 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides for the limitation period for ten years from the date on which the national tax is assessable if a taxpayer evades, obtains a refund, or deducts a national tax by deceit or other unlawful means (Article 1). Where a taxpayer fails to file a return within the statutory due date of return, it shall be seven years from the date on which the national tax is assessable (Article 26-2 (Article 2), and where it does not fall under

The legislative intent of Article 26-2(1)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes is to extend the exclusion period for imposition of national taxes to 10 years since it is extremely difficult for the tax authorities to discover that there is any fraudulent act, such as making it difficult to discover the taxation requirements of national taxes or forging false facts. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s act of directly preparing a sales contract as if the purchaser and the final purchaser have concluded a sales contract for the benefit of unregistered pre-sale, and further, even if it is difficult for the seller to directly complete the transfer registration under his own name without filing a preliminary or final return on transfer income tax, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff’s act of imposing transfer income tax under the name of the seller to be impossible or considerably difficult to impose and collect transfer income tax, and thus, it constitutes a “Fraud or other unlawful act” under Article 26-2(1)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200OB200, Oct. 11, 2013).

B) Whether the exclusion period is expired

Article 12-3 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that the date on which national taxes may be imposed under Article 26-2 (5) of the Act shall be the following dates: (a) the tax base and tax amount of the relevant national tax shall be the following dates; (b) the time limit for interim prepayment, preliminary return and revised return shall not be included in one association member's relocation right); and (c) Article 110 (1) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7837, Dec. 31, 2005) provides that the resident having the transfer income amount for the relevant year shall report the transfer income tax base to the head of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment, as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, from May 1 to 31 of the year following the current year; and (d) the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract on the land with the right to purchase on May 13, 200; and (e) the Defendant paid the transfer income tax of the pertinent year from 30O to 500 years immediately following the date of imposition period.

3. Conclusion

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