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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 269,187,540 for the Plaintiff on June 10, 2006 shall be revoked.

A. On June 12, 2003, the Plaintiff became the buyer at the highest price of 37,942 square meters of woodland 7 in Suwon District Court 2001, Suwon District Court 2001, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, prior to partition, and acquired ownership on August 18, 2003.

B. Around October 9, 2003, the land before subdivision was divided into the same 7-4 m242 m2 (hereinafter “instant land”); 7 m29,638 m2, and 7-3 m2,062 m2. Of these, the instant land was incorporated into a site for an urban planning facility project (road) project to build roads of 2-15 m2-15 m2 as between the death and the m203m2. On December 6, 2003, the Plaintiff transferred the instant land to the Korea Land Corporation, which is a project operator, for consultation with KRW 1,538,136,000 for the price of the instant land.

C. Around March 2, 2004, the Plaintiff reported and paid the transfer income tax on the basis of the standard market price to the Defendant with respect to the transfer of land in this case. Thereafter, on June 10, 2006, the Defendant calculated the transfer margin based on the actual transaction price at the time of acquisition and transfer by deeming that the Plaintiff acquired the land before subdivision for the purpose of taking profit from the market price due to short-term sale, and calculated the transfer margin based on the actual transaction price at the time of acquisition and transfer, and issued the instant disposition that determined and notified the Plaintiff of the transfer income tax for the year 2003.

D. On August 30, 2006, the Plaintiff claimed a national tax adjudication against the instant disposition. However, on November 28, 2006, the Plaintiff was dismissed, and accordingly, filed the instant lawsuit on February 27, 2007.

[Ground for Recognition] : Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1, 2, Gap evidence 3, 25, Eul evidence 1-1, 2, Eul evidence 5-1 through 3, Eul evidence 7, the whole purport of oral argument

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

While the Plaintiff was awarded a contract for the construction of electric power-based loan, and actually promoted the construction and sale of loan on the land before the division, the compensation plan for the land was publicly announced in Korea daily newspapers on August 28, 2003, and the land in this case was inevitably suspended due to the transfer of the land in consultation with the Korea Land Corporation. In light of the developments leading up to the acquisition or transfer of the land in this case, the Plaintiff did not acquire the land before the division for the purpose of short-swing, and thus, the disposition in this case was unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

(1) Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7837 of Dec. 31, 2005)

Article 96 Transfer Price

(1) The transfer value of assets referred to in Article 94 (1) 1 and 2 shall be the standard market value at the time of the transfer of the assets concerned: Provided, That where the assets concerned fall under any of the following subparagraphs, the actual transaction value between the transferor and transferee (hereinafter referred to as “actual transaction value”) shall apply:

4. In the case of the real estate within one year after its acquisition;

(2) The transfer value referred to in Article 94 (1) 3 and 4 shall be based on the actual transaction value at the time of transfer of the assets concerned.

(4) In applying paragraph (1) 4, the standard market price may be applied under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree in case where the transfer is made within one year from its acquisition due to inevitable causes, such as expropriation (including purchase by consultation) under the Act on the Acquisition of Land,

【Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act

Article 162-2 (Transfer Price)

(4) In the application of Article 96 (4) of the Act, where the real estate acquired through inheritance is transferred within one year from its acquisition, or where it is transferred within one year from its acquisition due to inevitable causes, such as expropriation (including purchase by consultation) under the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects and other Acts, and where it is deemed that there is no transaction for the purpose of short-swing profit in light of the details of the acquisition or transfer of the real estate and the actual conditions of its use, etc., it may be decided

(c) Fact of recognition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, 6, 12, and 13, evidence Nos. 14-1, 2, and 14-2, evidence No. 15, evidence No. 16-1, 2, Gap evidence No. 17, 18, 19-1, 2, evidence No. 20-1, 2, evidence No. 21-2, evidence No. 23 through 27, evidence No. 28-1, 29-2, evidence No. 30-1, 2, evidence No. 30-1, 31-2, evidence No. 31-2, evidence No. 2, evidence No. 32-1, evidence No. 3-1, 2-2, and 3-1, evidence No. 9-2, evidence No. 1, and evidence No. 3-1, evidence No. 9-2, evidence No.

(1) On March 28, 2001, a decision of voluntary auction was rendered by Suwon District Court 2001Mo○○○○○○○○○ on the land prior to subdivision. However, on June 21, 2001, the relation with which the first sale date was set and thereafter failed on several occasions or the decision of the highest bidder was rejected on several occasions after the date of the first sale, and the minimum sale standard was reduced higher than the appraised value at the time of the Plaintiff’s participation in the bid.

"(2) The Governor of the Gyeonggi-do announced on January 22, 2003 of the Gyeonggi-do public notice on the change of the urban planning (financial expenses) on the land before subdivision, which includes the fact that the main passage of the land before subdivision is newly established. The purpose of this case was also to make the relevant books stored in the ○○ Viewing Urban Planning and make it available to the public for public inspection. Accordingly, the urban management planning drawing, which is provided for public inspection, was indicated as follows: (a) the scheduled route of 2-15 lines, as the main line, passed through the “V” type of the land before subdivision. The ○○○ City announced on August 11, 2003 by the ○○○-si public notice No. 2003-190 on the land before subdivision; (b) the portion of the land before subdivision was included in the 2003-190 on the site of the construction project, and (c) the Plaintiff was designated from the 2003-19-196th construction industrial engineer on the land.

(4) Before participating in an auction, the Plaintiff conducted an on-site visit of the land before the division to the direction of the non-party company, and analyzed and examined the feasibility of the project. As a result, the road will be constructed on the land before the division, but in light of the geographical characteristics, the underground tunnel is anticipated, and the surrounding environment and surrounding urban areas are likely to be formed, and the development of a low-rise high-class loan complex, electric source restaurant, etc. is considerably feasible, and the results of such analysis were reported to the non-party conference.

(5) 당초 원고는 소외 회사의 지시로 소외 회사를 대리하여 분할 전 토지의 경매에 참가할 예정이었으나, 소외 회사는 분할 전 토지가 초등학교로부터 멀리 떨어져 있고, 개발시 발생하는 산림훼손 등의 문제가 해결되지 않았다는 이유로 매각기일 직전에 응찰을 포기하였다. 이에 직접 물건 분석을 하였던 원고는 자신이 이를 취득하기로 결심하고 매각기일인 2003. 6. 12. 소외 회사 직원인 배◆◆ 및 송□□의 소개로 이■■으로부터 2억원, △△건설 주식회사로부터 4억원을 각 차입하여 이를 입찰보증금으로 납부하고 최고가매수신고인이 되었고, 같은 달 19. 매각허가결정을 받았다.

(6) 원고는 2003. 8. 18. 김▲▲으로부터 15억원을 차용하여 이로써 경락잔대금을 납부하였고, 다음날인 19. 분할 전 토지에 관하여 원고 앞으로 소유권이전등기를 경료함과 동시에 김▲▲ 앞으로 같은 달 18.자 매매예약을 원인으로 한 소유권이전청구권가등기를 경료하였다.

(7) On August 28, 2003, the Korea Land Corporation publicly announced a compensation plan for land incorporated into a project zone, obstacles, business, etc. in a daily daily daily newspaper, such as economic newspapers, etc., pursuant to Article 15 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects.

(8) On September 22, 2003, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the person, other than the Song▽▽△△, by setting the price of the land before subdivision as three billion won, and received KRW 700 million in total, including KRW 400 million and KRW 300 million among the down payment and the intermediate payment. However, upon the demand of the Song▽▽△△△△, the sales contract was prepared retroactively as of August 25 of the same year, and the price was also stated as KRW 6 billion in addition to the cost anticipated to be incurred in undergroundizing the road to be constructed after passing the said land. After that, the number of the roads to be constructed on the land before subdivision was waived, and accordingly, the down payment was confiscated to the Plaintiff.

(9) 원고는 2003. 12. 4. 김▲▲에게 분할 전 토지 중 이 사건 토지를 제외한 나머지 부분을 동인으로부터 차용한 15억원의 변제에 갈음하여 양도하기로 하고 같은 날 김▲▲ 앞으로 소유권이전등기를 경료하였다.

(10) The urban planning confirmation drawings and development plan drawings attached to each land use plan confirmation certificate (Evidence A, No. 23, 24) dated June 14, 2003 and August 13, 2003 on the land before subdivision do not indicate the location of the road to be established on the land before subdivision, but the urban planning facility column among the land use plan confirmation certificate is stipulated as "road promotion" in the urban planning facility column.

(11) The Plaintiff was in arrears with 20 million won or more national taxes, including the amount in arrears of capital gains tax due to the instant disposition, including global income tax, and the head of the competent tax office deemed that the Plaintiff did not have any special property, such as real estate, and accordingly disposed of the amount in arrears.

D. Determination

위 인정사실에 의하면, 원고는 건설업체에서 20년 이상 근무한 건축전무가로서 부동산과 관련된 상당한 경험과 식견이 있었을 것으로 보이고, 이와 같은 원고가 소외 회사의 지시로 분할 전 토지 및 그 사업성에 대하여 조사 · 분석하였으며, 그 과정에서 분할 전 토지 한가운데로 간선도로가 개설되리라는 사정을 알게 되었음에도(원고는 그 구체적인 위치 등에 대하여는 몰랐다고 주장하나, 소외 회사의 지시로 사업성 검토를 하는 마당에 시청에 비치되어 일반의 열람에 제공되는 도시관리계획 도면만 확인하면 쉽사리 확인이 가능한 계획도로의 위치 등을 확인하여 보지도 않았다는 주장은 쉽사리 믿기 어렵고, 원고가 소외 회사에 분석결과를 보고한 내용 중에는 지하터널식으로 도로가 개설될 것으로 보인다는 구체적인 개설방법도 포함되어 있다), 소외 회사도 사업성에 의문을 품고 입찰에 참가하는 것을 포기한 마당에 토지를 구입할 자금조차 없는 원고가 입찰기일에 임박하여 갑자기 분할 전 토지에 빌라를 건축할 계획으로 21억원이라는 거액에 분할 전 토지를 경락받아 취득하고, 다시 그 경락대금의 몇 배에 이를 것으로 보이는 대지조성 및 빌라 건축자금을 투자하려 하였다는 것은 금융 등의 방법이 있다고 하더라도 현실적으로 쉽사리 수긍하기 어렵다. 여기에 원고가 2008. 8. 18. 김▲▲과 사이에 분할 전 토지에 관하여 매매예약을 체결하고 다음날인 19. 동인 앞으로 소유권이전청구권 가등기를 경료한 것이 경락잔대금 15억원을 마련하기 위하여 금원을 차용하면서 담보로 제공하기 위한 것이었다 하더라도, 원고는 분할 전 토지를 그 취득일로부터 불과 한 달여 만에 송▽▽ 외 2인에게 경락대금보다 9억원이나 높은 가격에 매도하기로 계약을 체결하였고, 취득일로부터 4개월도 안되어 분할 전 토지 중 면적 기준 약 37%에 불과한 이 사건 토지를 전체 경락대금의 약 73%에 상당한 15억여원에 협의양도하는 한편, 나머지 토지를 김▲▲에게 차용금의 변제에 갈음하여 양도하여 결과적으로 단기간 내에 9억여원에 이르는 거액의 양도차익을 얻었고, 원고의 경락가액이 당초 감정평가액에 비하여 상당히 저감되었다는 점에서 이와 같은 양도차익을 거두리라는 것은 예상이 가능하였을 것으로 보이는 점 등을 보태어 보면, 원고가 분할 전 토지를 취득한 것은 단기매매차익을 목적으로 거래한 경우에 해당하는 것으로 봄이 상당하다.

Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion on a different premise is without merit, and the instant disposition is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Seoul High Court Decision 2008Nu5799, 2008.10]

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

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.