Whether the facts of the final return on tax base are subject to an administrative litigation

Unless the tax base and tax amount decided on the voluntarily paid tax at the time of the final tax base return were notified by a tax payment notice, it cannot be deemed that there was a taxation disposition identifying the tax liability, and the taxation disposition exists on the ground that the tax authority received the final tax base return by internal confirmation (Dismissal).

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The lawsuit of this case is dismissed. 2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are either disputed between the parties, or acknowledged in light of the whole purport of the pleadings in each of the statements in Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 5-1 through 5, Gap evidence 6-1, 2, Gap evidence 7, Eul evidence 8-1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 4, 5, and 6-1, 2, and each of the statements in Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 5-1, Gap evidence 6-2, and there is no counter-proof.

가. 원고는 1975. 12. 17. ㅇㅇ시 ㅇㅇ구 ㅇㅇ동 155의 14 대 360평방미터(이하 이 사건 제1토지라 한다) 중 15분의 6 지분을 취득하여 소유하고 있었고, 위 토지의 나머지 지분은 소외 김ㅇㅇ가 소유하고 있었으며, 이 사건 제1토지와 인접한 같은동 155의 13대 347평방미터(이하 이 사건 제2토지라 한다)는 소외 박ㅇㅇ, 고ㅇㅇ, 윤ㅇㅇ가 각 12분의 4 지분씩을 각 소유하고 있었는데, 위 각 토지상에는 시멘트와즙 주택1동 43.64평방미터와 목조초가지붕 주택 1동 33.06평방미터가 경계가 불분명한 상태로 축조되어 있었다.

B. On April 24, 1993, the owners of each of the above lands including the Plaintiff (five plaintiffs et al.) agreed on April 24, 1993 that each of the above lands will be owned by the combined land according to the original ownership shares, and that in order to equal the ownership shares of each of the above lands in accordance with the provisions of the Cadastral Act at the time when the owners of both lands who intend to merge are not permitted to merge are different, the ownership shares of each of the above lands shall be equal in the way of exchanging part of their own shares.

다. 위 합의에 따라서 원고는 1993. 5. 11. 이 사건 제1토지의 공유지분 중 15분의 3 지분에 관하여 소외 박ㅇㅇ에게 같은 달 10. 교환을 원인으로 한 소유권이전등기를 하는 한편 같은 날 위 박ㅇㅇ도 이 사건 제2토지의 공유지분 중 12분의 1.6 지분에 관하여 원고에게 같은 달 10. 교환을 원인으로 한 소유권이전등기를 하였고, 원고와 위 박ㅇㅇ를 제외한 위 각 토지의 나머지 공유자들도 같은날 같은 방식에 따라서 각자의 공유지분 일부씩을 교환하여, 결국 원고 등 5인이 이 사건 제1토지는 각 15분의 3지분씩을, 이 사건 제2토지는 각 12분의 2.4 지분씩을 공유하는 것으로 등기되었다.

라. 위 각 교환등기가 마쳐진 후 1993. 5. 27. 에 이르러 이 사건 제2토지는 이 사건 제1토지에 합병되어 같은동 155의 14 대 707평방미터의 한 필지로 되었다가, 같은 달 31. 그 중 287평방미터가 같은동 155의 86 대지로, 70평방미터가 같은 동 155의 87 도로로 각 분할되고, 위 분할된 후의 같은 동 155의 14 대 350평방미터를 위 박ㅇㅇ, 고ㅇㅇ, 윤ㅇㅇ가 각 12분의 4 지분씩을, 위 같은 동 155의 86 대지와 155의 87 도로는 원고가 각 15분의 6 지분을 위 김동기가 각 15분의 9 지분을 각 소유하는 것으로 등기됨으로써 위 원고등 5인이 위 합병・분할전에 소유하던 것과 근사한 면적에 상당하는 지분을 소유하게 되었다.

마. 원고는 이 사건 제1, 2토지의 합병을 위한 교환과정에서 이 사건 제1토지의 공유지분 중 15분의 3 지분을 교환을 원인으로 위 박ㅇㅇ에게 이전등기한데 대하여 1994. 5. 기준시가에 의한 양도차익을 산정하여 과세표준확정신고를 하고, 양도소득세로 금19,726,650원을 자진납부하였다.

F. On December 31, 1994, the Defendant decided the tax base and tax amount identical to the Plaintiff’s final return on tax base, but did not notify in writing pursuant to Article 128 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4803, Dec. 22, 1994; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 183 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14467, Dec. 31, 1994; hereinafter the same shall apply).

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

The plaintiff argues that the exchange of shares in this case is illegal because it is limited by the intellectual law that permits the merger with the same owner only for the same land for the purpose of the merger with adjacent land, and that the share in the first and second land in this case is equal to the share in the ownership of the same land through the form of exchange, and the result of the merger and division by the method of exchange is also deemed to hold the ownership of shares in the status prior to the exchange and the size of the neighboring land. Thus, this cannot be deemed as a substantial exchange corresponding to the transfer of the asset. Accordingly, as to the disposition of this case on the premise that the share exchange constitutes the transfer of the asset at the cost, the defendant did not impose capital gains tax on the plaintiff

B. Determination

Article 22 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 10-2 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 14860 of Dec. 30, 1995) provides that the tax base and tax amount shall be determined upon determination of the tax base and tax amount by the tax authority (see, e.g., Article 22 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 10-2 (3) of the same Act). The effect of the determination shall arise when the tax authority notifies the taxpayer in writing of the tax base and tax amount by stating the tax base and tax rate, tax amount and other necessary matters in the tax notice. In addition, even if there is no tax amount, the determination of the tax base and tax amount shall be written notification (see, e.g., Article 9 of the National Tax Collection Act, Article 128 of the former Income Tax Act, Article 183 of the same Act). Such provisions on the determination of tax base and tax amount shall not be deemed to have been made by the Plaintiff’s reasonable notification of tax imposition and notification.

Therefore, since the defendant did not notify the final return on the tax base of this case on May 1994, the imposition of KRW 19,726,650 for the transfer income tax belonging to the year 193 shall not exist.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since there is no capital gains tax disposition as of December 31, 1994, for which the plaintiff sought revocation, there is no capital gains tax disposition as of December 31, 1994, the lawsuit of this case, which is premised on such a taxation disposition, is dismissed as unlawful,