Seoul Administrative Court-2015-Gu 63869 ( August 11, 2017)

In the event of cancellation of the apartment sale contract, the disposition of imposition based on the cancellation contract shall be illegal.

Although the claim that any change in profits and losses arising from the cancellation of a sales contract should revert to the business year to which the cancellation date belongs (Article 69(3) of the Enforcement Decree), this provision shall apply from the first business year that begins after January 1, 2012, and the cancellation or cancellation of a sales contract before the enforcement date of this Act is not applicable, and the change in profits and losses arising from the cancellation of a sales contract is retroactively changed.

Article 40 (Business Year of Profit and Loss)

Seoul High Court 2017Nu36269 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing Corporate Tax

AAAA Corporation

AA Head of the Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2015Guhap63869 decided August 11, 2017

July 20, 2018

September 21, 2018

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

Corporate tax****,143,240 won (including additional tax) imposed on the Plaintiff on May 2, 201**,143,240,

200* Corporate Tax*,**,545,740 won (including additional tax) shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

This judgment is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, with the exception of adding or deleting the following contents among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, and adding the judgment as to the matters alleged by the defendant as set forth in paragraph (2) above, it is consistent with the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is difficult to view that the contract was entered into with the content of acquisition, or that the contract was entered into between the plaintiff, the second-class buyer and the third party with the content of comprehensively succeeding to the rights and obligations of the existing sales contract."

○ 11. Parts from 6.0 up to 8.00 up to 11.00 up to 8.00.00

○○ 13th 13th 1th 1st 1st 1st 1st 3th 1st 3th 1st 3th 3th 3th 3th 3th 3th ".................." The following are added: "However, each entry of the evidence No. 5, 25 and 26th 1th 26th *, the witness of the trial*, **, **, ***, *, * each written testimony of the above 30th 13th 13th 13th 18th 13th 18th 13th "(the tax authority has the burden of proving the legality of the disposition, so it is reasonable to see that the reduced sales price of the 1th 3th 3th 1st 3th 1st 3th 1st 3th 196 and the sales rate

2. Additional matters to be determined;

The defendant asserts to the effect that, notwithstanding the cancellation and cancellation of the sales contract for 242 apartment units in this case, as long as the plaintiff did not refund the pre-paid sales price to the pre-existing buyers, the sale rate, which is the basis of each disposition in this case, is not changed.

However, it is difficult to view that the economic benefits equivalent to the sales price ultimately accrue to the plaintiff in the business year 208 and 2009 by holding the sales price in the relationship with the pre-existing buyers of Types 1, 3 as much as the Plaintiff reduced in the sales price in the relationship with the pre-existing buyers of Types 2, 4 as it is. The plaintiff's holding of the sales price as a result of the type 2 and 4 is based on a new contract with a third party who is not the pre-existing buyer and can be reflected after the business year when the new sales contract was concluded, and the plaintiff can be deemed to have returned the pre-sale price paid to the pre-existing buyer in accordance with a new contract with a third party in relation to Types 2 and 4. In light of the above, the defendant's assertion cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.