Suwon District Court-2018-Gu Group-9754 ( October 12, 2019)

Cho-2018-China 3201, 3202,3203 ( October 17, 2018)

The money received through the decision of compulsory adjustment after the cancellation of the existing contract for the purchase and sale of shares constitutes capital gains, and the time of attribution is determined by the decision of compulsory adjustment.

(See the judgment of the court of first instance) In civil procedure, the money received through the decision of compulsory adjustment after the erroneous cancellation of the existing contract for the sale and purchase constitutes capital gains, and the time when capital gains accrue falls under capital gains is earlier than the date of the balance settlement or the date of ownership transfer registration. In this case, the date of ownership transfer registration

Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act Article 162 (Time of Transfer or Acquisition)

2019Nu11350 Revocation of disposition of imposing capital gains tax

IsaA, B, thisCC

○○ Head of tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2018Gudan9754 Decided June 12, 2019

o October 02, 2019

November 06, 2010

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. Each disposition of the Defendant imposed capital gains tax of KRW 741,654,770 (including additional tax) for the year 2014 on April 6, 2018 against Plaintiff Lee Dong-A, and capital gains tax of KRW 78,524,960 (including additional tax) for the year 2014 and the capital gains tax of KRW 563,334,030 (including additional tax) for the year 2014 granted to Plaintiff Lee Dong-B, shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

The reason why this court is used is the same as that of the first instance judgment, except for the second instance judgment, and therefore, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts in height:

○ The first instance court's decision 9 12 lines 12 lines 12 '(A)' is called '(a)'.

○ From 10 to 7 lines of the first instance judgment are as follows.

“3) The time when capital gains accrue

A) Validity of the ownership transfer registration of each of the instant lands

In a case where a registration becomes null and void after it satisfies the substantive requirements after the registration becomes null and void at the beginning, or where the registration becomes null and void after the registration becomes void at the first time, such utility of invalidation registration is permitted only if there is no third party who has an interest in the registration before an agreement to use the registration is reached (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da72802, Feb. 26, 2009). If an invalid registration becomes null and void due to a defect in the substantive requirements and the existence of a substantive relationship corresponding to the registration thereafter becomes effective (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 70Da1630, Dec. 24, 1970).

In light of the following circumstances revealed through the aforementioned facts and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, the plaintiffs intended to increase the amount of the price through the prior civil procedure of this case, but did not want to restore the land to its original state, ○○○ City already paid compensation to the plaintiffs at the time of concluding a contract for the prior civil procedure of this case. The plaintiffs did not express their intent to withhold transfer of ownership until the price is settled in the process of concluding a contract for the prior civil procedure of this case. In fact, the plaintiffs and ○○ City continued possession and use of each land of this case by accepting the decision for the compulsory adjustment of this case by accepting the decision for the new sales contract of this case. Accordingly, in light of the above legal principles, the registration of transfer of ownership of each land of this case should be deemed to have been invalidated as a matter of course from 200 to 400 to 00 to 201, which became null and void due to the agreement cancellation of ownership transfer registration of this case.

A) The time of transfer of each land of this case and the year to which transfer income belongs

According to Articles 96(1) and 98 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 14389, Dec. 20, 2016) and Article 162 subparag. 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, the transfer value of assets shall be based on the actual transaction value between the transferor and the transferee at the time of transfer of the assets, and the time of transfer shall be the date of settlement of the price when calculating gains on transfer of assets, but if the transfer is registered before the price is settled, the registration date recorded in the register shall be the date

As seen earlier, the settlement of the price pursuant to a new sales contract was made around January 31, 2015, and the registration of ownership transfer in the name of ○○ City with respect to each of the instant land is registered as effective from April 8, 2014, and the registration of ownership transfer in the name of ○○ City with respect to each of the instant land is eventually completed before the price is settled. As such, in calculating gains on transfer from the transfer of each of the instant land, the time of transfer shall be deemed to be April 8, 2014.

Therefore, the year to which the transfer income tax on each land of this case belongs shall be 2014 years to which the date on which the registration of invalidation becomes effective belongs.

4) Sub-committee

The instant disposition based on the premise that the year to which the transfer income of each land of this case belongs is 2014 is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, all appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.