National Tax Service Review and Transfer 2010-0165 (Law No. 28, 20109)

It is recognized that forest land has not been resold.

Since it is reasonable to see that forest land was sold in an unregistered state, imposition of capital gains tax is legitimate.

2010Guhap2379 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

KimA

○ Head of tax office

June 24, 2011

oly 22, 2011

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 419,522,780 for the year 2005 against the Plaintiff on March 19, 2010 (140,550,470) is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

(a) On November 22, 2004, 20000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000,0000 000 00,000 for 00 00,000 for 00 00 00,000,000 for 00 00,000,000 for 14,000,0000,0000.

B. On October 19, 2004, the Plaintiff: (a) drafted a sales contract to purchase a total of KRW 8,000 from the above ○○○○○○○○, 94,000, out of the forest land prior to the above subdivision; (b) revised the sales contract to purchase KRW 2,50,000; (c) on February 7, 2005, the Plaintiff and three others purchase KRW 1,520,000 for KRW 7,00 for KRW 1,520,00,00 for KRW 7,00 for the instant forest land under the name of KRW 5,00; and (d) subsequently, on May 20, 2005, the Plaintiff registered the transfer of the Plaintiff’s ownership of the instant forest land under the name of KRW 1,520,00 for KRW 7,57,00 for the instant forest land under the name of KRW 1,520,000 for KRW 1,75.

C. On March 19, 2010, the Defendant issued a disposition to the Plaintiff on March 19, 2010 to determine and notify the Plaintiff of KRW 419,52,780 (including additional tax) as the transfer income tax for the forest land for the year 2005, on the ground that the Plaintiff sold the instant forest land to the leB, the CivilCC, and the KimE, without being registered, and underreporting the transfer income tax for the instant forest land for the instant No. 7, sold to the lowest lehee, and that gift tax for the forest land No. 5 was omitted, and among them, the transfer income tax for the year 2005 imposed by the Plaintiff on the leB and the CivilCC (including the instant forest land No. 2 and 3) for which the Plaintiff sold the unregistered forest land (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 12, 15, 18, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On October 19, 2004, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with ○○○○, ○○, ○○, 94,000 square meters of forest land 40.860 square meters prior to the division, to purchase KRW 26,447 square meters (8,00 square meters) from 1,50,000,000,000 from KimA and one other (the actual owner Kim JJ). Since the Plaintiff’s waiver of purchase and the shortage of funds, the Plaintiff’s disposition on behalf of the buyer was unlawful on February 7, 2005, on the premise that the Plaintiff purchased the forest land of this case from 3B under the above sales contract, and then purchased the forest of this case, the Plaintiff did not acquire the ownership transfer registration on February 3, 2005.

Even if non-re-sale of household affairs is recognized, the title 2 and 3 forest of this case acquired by civilCC and leB should be evaluated as having high value adjacent to the road, and so it cannot be recognized as gains from resale because they have been purchased and sold at a price corresponding thereto from the beginning. Thus, the disposition of this case should be revoked unfairly in various forms (the plaintiff's assertion is not clear).

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) The title holder of each forest of this case before the registration of ownership transfer was made to the plaintiff et al., and the owner of each forest of this case was Kim J, Lee K or its actual owner, and the plaintiff and Kim J were the main contents of each sales contract prepared on October 19, 2004 and February 7, 2005 between the plaintiff and Kim J as follows.

(The following table omitted)

(2) As to the third forest land of this case, the Plaintiff, as a selling agent, entered into a sales contract with the CivilCC on November 8, 2004 as follows.

(The following table omitted)

(3) As to the Class 2 forest land of this case, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the seller agent on January 30, 2005 with the following terms:

(The following table omitted)

(4) Regarding the purchase price of each forest of this case, Kim J issued the following receipts to the Plaintiff.

(The following table omitted)

(5) With respect to each purchase price of forest land Nos. 2 and 3 of the instant case, the Plaintiff issued a receipt for the following details to leB and the CivilCC:

(The following table omitted)

(6) On the other hand, le II made a statement to the effect that ○○ Tax affairs investigator was not aware of ○○○, leB, and intended to purchase forest land through the Plaintiff’s introduction, but did not participate in the sales contract from the beginning on the cover of the price.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 7, 9 through 14, 17, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 7, 8 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

The Plaintiff’s disposal of the instant forest land 2 and 3 is that the Plaintiff’s disposal of the instant forest land 3 before purchasing the instant forest land and the Plaintiff’s disposal of the instant forest land 4 was based on health, recognition and evidence, i.e., the sales contract concluded between the Plaintiff and Kim J on October 19 and February 7, 2005, and each of the above sales contract indicated the Plaintiff’s 3 non-de-sale of the instant forest land 1 and the non-sale of the instant forest land 3. The Plaintiff’s disposal of the non-sale of the instant forest land 1 and the non-sale of the non-sale of the instant forest land 1 and the non-sale of the non-sale of the non-sale of the instant forest land 1 and the non-sale of the non-sale of the non-sale of the instant forest land 2 and the non-sale of the non-sale of the instant forest land 3. The Plaintiff’s assertion that each of the above non-sale of the instant forest land 1 and the non-sale of the agreement is not consistent with the Plaintiff 2.

3. Conclusion

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