Suwon District Court 2008Guhap4294 ( December 14, 2010)

Seoul High Court Decision 2007-0065 (208.02)

Capital gains tax imposed on the investment in kind of land pursuant to a joint project agreement is legitimate;

공동사업시행약정을 하고 손익분배비율이 정하여져 있으므로 동업계약이 아니라는 주장은 이유 없고, 공동사업약정이 해제되었다고 볼 수 도 없으므로 공동사업약정에 따라 토지를 현물출자한 것에 대하여 양도소득세를 과세한 처분은 적법함

2011Nu3120 Revocation of disposition of imposing capital gains tax

○ ○ Mamphys

○ Head of tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2008Guhap4294 Decided December 14, 2010

July 13, 201

August 24, 2011

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 1,558,973,720 against the Plaintiff on June 10, 2007 by the Defendant shall be revoked.

1. cite the judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court concerning this case is as follows, and the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the plaintiff, except for adding the allegations made by the plaintiff in this court and the determination thereof. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

In 02, "AA public corporation" that takes the 8th and the 11th and the 11th is called "B public corporation". The 5th and last 05th 'A evidence' is called "2 of evidence 5.

Under 05, the 6th and the 3th and the 6th twoth and the 3th and the 00th and the 2nd are the ○○ Construction.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and its determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) It is difficult to regard the agreement entered into on December 29, 200 by the Plaintiff and △△ Industry as a partnership agreement, because it is difficult to regard it as an agreement that only the Plaintiff gains profit, and it is merely that the Plaintiff itself has run the instant business.

2) The instant joint business agreement was de facto rescinded by the Plaintiff following the agreement entered into with ○○ Development on January 28, 2003 (hereinafter “instant agreement”). However, the instant agreement is null and void by the Plaintiff’s representative who entered into a contract with the Plaintiff’s clan without being delegated by the Plaintiff’s clan, and entered into a contract with ○○ Development (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

Therefore, even if the Plaintiff did not bear the transfer income tax following the transfer of the instant land, or even if not, the transfer income tax should be calculated in accordance with the instant contract, and in particular, the penalty tax under the premise that the transfer income tax is calculated in accordance with the instant joint project agreement should be revoked.

3) Even if the above arguments are groundless, since it is unreasonable to expect the Plaintiff to fulfill the obligation to report and pay capital gains tax, the portion of penalty tax should be revoked.

B. Determination

1) 먼저, 이 사건 공동사업약정이 동업계약이 아니라는 주장에 관하여 본다. 민법 제703조 제1항은 "조합은 2인 이상이 상호출자 하여 공동사업을 경영할 것을 약정함으로써 그 효력이 생긴다 고 규정하고 있고, 제2항은 "전항의 출자는 금전 기타 재산 또 는 노무로 할 수 있다 고 규정하고 있으며, 민법 제711조 제1항은 "당사자가 손익분배 의 비율을 정하지 아니한 때에는 각 조합원의 출자가액에 비례하여 이를 정한다 고 규정하고 있고, 제2항은 "이익 또는 손익에 대하여 분배의 비율을 정한 때에는 그 비율은 이익과 손실에 공통된 것으로 추정한다 고 규정하고 있다. 또, 조합 구성원은 합의에 따라 손익분배비율을 변경할 수도 있다.

In the joint agreement on the joint project agreement of this case (Evidence 9), the whole proceeds remaining after excluding project costs and taxes and public charges shall be the plaintiff's revenue. However, the title of the agreement is "joint project implementation agreement (construction of multi-family housing)". Paragraph 6 provides that the plaintiff shall be guaranteed at least KRW 2,50,00 per square year with land price, construction costs, and project costs shall be distributed to △△ industry. The plaintiff and △△△ industry may subcontract part of their share under their own responsibility (Article 7 (subcontract) of the joint project implementation agreement) and the contents of the agreement are changed if there is a change between the parties concerned (Article 10 of the conditions of the joint project implementation agreement), the settlement of the project was made occasional if necessary, and the remaining decision of △△△△△△△200,000 won was made by the plaintiff to complete the settlement of construction costs within 300,000,0000 won (Article 40 of the joint project implementation agreement).

따라서 원고와 ◇◇사업은 이 사건 사업을 공동으로 하되 최소한 원고에게 평당 2,500,000원 이상을 보장하고, ◇◇산업은 사업비를 정산하고 그 나머지는 원고가 가져가는 것으로 이익분배를 약정하였고(이 사건 공동사업약정상 사업비 정산 과정에서 ◇◇산업은 그 이익을 정산 받을 수 있는 것으로 보인다), 그 후 손익분배비율이 원고와 ◇◇산업 사이에서 변경되었다가 법원의 강제조정 결정에 따라 최종적으로 확정된 것으로 보아야 한다(덧붙여 원고 제1심 대리인은 제1심 제2차 변론기일에서 원고와 ◇◇산업이 2000. 12. 29. 동업약정을 체결하였다고 진술한 바 있다). 원고와 ◇◇산업이 공동주택 건설을 목적으로 한 동업체가 아니라는 원고 주장은 이유 없다.

2) 다음으로, 이 사건 공동사업약정이 해제되고 이 사건 도급계약으로 변경되었다는 주장에 관하여 본다. 앞서 본 대로 이 사건 공동사업약정에서는 당사자 사이에 약정 내용에 관하여 변경이 있는 경우에는 그 변경 내용에 따라 분담 내용이 변경된 것으로 하기로 정하였고, 이 사건 도급계약은 그에 따라 원고와 ◇◇산업 사이의 손익분배비율을 변경한 것이며, 이 사건 도급계약에서 ○○건설은 분양보증서 발급을 위하여 공동사업시행자로 추가된 것에 불과할 뿐이므로(을 5호증의 2), 그로 인하여 이 사건 공동사업약정이 해제되었다고 볼 수 없다. 이를 전제로 한 원고 주장은 모두 이유 없다.

3) Lastly, we examine the argument that the imposition of additional tax is illegal. The Plaintiff concluded the instant joint business agreement and did not report and pay the transfer income tax accordingly, even though it did not make a contribution in kind to the Dong business entity in the Plaintiff and △△ Industry. It cannot be deemed that there is a justifiable reason for the Plaintiff to not report and pay the transfer income tax. The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.