beta
Text
1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On April 14, 2005, Plaintiff A sold at KRW 44,300,000,000, the land transaction permission zone and KRW 56 (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”) to the Construction-Nam Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff Construction-Nam Development”) in Yangju-si located in the land transaction permission zone.
B. On October 13, 2006, when the Plaintiff paid the balance of each of the instant lands to the Plaintiff A, the Plaintiff deemed that the Plaintiff constituted a non-resident under Article 1-2(1)2 of the Income Tax Act, and on the same day, the Plaintiff withheld KRW 4,430,000 from the Plaintiff as well as KRW 443,873,000,000,000, and paid it to the Naan Tax Office on the same day.
C. On January 29, 2008, Plaintiff A obtained land transaction permission for part of each of the instant lands, and filed a report on the transfer income tax on land transaction permission on the 31st of the same month on the 31st of the same month and deducted KRW 778,119,574, out of the transfer income tax paid prior to the filing of the report on land transaction permission on the 31st of the same month.
After that, around December 2010, the remaining lands, among each of the instant lands, for which no land transaction permission was obtained, were cancelled in the land transaction permission zone. Accordingly, on May 31, 201, Plaintiff A reported transfer income tax on the remaining lands to the Government Tax Office on May 31, 201, deducted the remaining KRW 3,651,80,426, excluding the said KRW 778,119,574, from the said KRW 4,430,000, and then deducted the said KRW 3,651,880,426.
After that, the plaintiffs are not non-residents under Article 1-2 (1) 2 of the Income Tax Act, and they did not have any obligation to withhold and pay capital gains tax from the plaintiff at the time they pay the balance of each land of this case to the plaintiff, and only when the plaintiff obtained land transaction permission for each land of this case or cancelled each land of this case from the land transaction permission zone, the plaintiff Gap is liable to pay capital gains tax for the plaintiff Gap. However, the plaintiff Ynam Development is erroneous as non-resident Eul.