Review Transfer 2010-0168 (28. 2010.09)

(1) shall be subject to a transfer income due to unregistered resale, other than consulting costs;

It is reasonable to view that the substance of a consulting contract appears to be a sales contract for the land before subdivision; all the processes of sale are deemed to have been led under its own account and responsibility; and that the gains generated in the course of land transfer are excessive as consulting costs, it is deemed that the land before subdivision was purchased and the unregistered resale was not registered.

2010Guhap2317 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

Park AA

Chuncheon Director of the Tax Office

July 22, 2011

August 12, 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 KRW 65,421,361 for the Plaintiff on February 26, 2010 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 15, 2008, the document OB-type 000 m200 m2,031 m2 (hereinafter referred to as “land before the instant division”) owned by KimB-type 350 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m231 m2,000 m2,000 m230 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,00 m2,000 m2,000 m2,00 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,00 m26,00 m26,00

B. On January 5, 2010, the Defendant: (a) concluded a consulting agreement with GimB to transfer the instant land to the Plaintiff at KRW 121,00,00,000; (b) the Plaintiff received the purchase price (total amount of KRW 254,160,00) from D, E, LF, E, LG and H (hereinafter referred to as “Mediation, etc.”) from the Plaintiff; (c) on the ground that the Plaintiff appears to have transferred the instant land unregistered to the Plaintiff on the ground that “........, the Plaintiff rendered a disposition to determine and notify KRW 133,549,780 as transfer income tax for the year 2008.”

C. Accordingly, on January 27, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the Defendant. On February 26, 2010, the Defendant adjusted the transfer value of each of the instant lands to KRW 194,980,00, and recognized the transfer value of each of the instant lands to KRW 9,369,50, and determined the deduction of KRW 68,128,419 in the disposition imposing the transfer income tax, and the transfer income tax for the year 2008 was corrected to KRW 65,421,361 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on May 28, 2010, but was dismissed on September 28, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff, as a real estate consulting business operator on October 31, 2008, provided services to enable the Plaintiff to sell and purchase the land to another person in accordance with a consulting agreement on the development and sale of the land prior to the instant subdivision, which was concluded with KimB, and received the amount calculated by deducting the purchase price of the land prior to the instant subdivision from the purchase price of each of the instant land. Thus, the instant disposition made on the premise that the Plaintiff purchased the land prior to the instant subdivision and reselled it to ChoD, etc. in an unregistered state is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

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

(c)a recognition;

(1) From June 5, 2008 to March 2, 2010, the Plaintiff engaged in real estate consulting business under the trade name called "globalized from OO-Myeon O-si in Chuncheon."

(2) On October 31, 2008, the Plaintiff drafted a “consulting contract” with the following contents, and on the same day, KimB signed a power of attorney to delegate all the powers regarding the disposal of the land before the instant partition to the Plaintiff.

(3) After November 5, 2008, between November 5, 2008 and November 20, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with ChoB as an agent of KimB, etc., and ChoD et al. completed each registration of transfer of ownership pursuant to each of the above 1 paragraph (a). Each sales contract (which did not prepare a separate sales contract with the largest amount of FF and GaE) made between the Plaintiff, ChoB, and GoH, all of which are written by the consignee of the down payment, the Plaintiff, the seller, and the agent respectively as the Plaintiff, KimB, and the Plaintiff’s seal, not the KimB’s seal, affixed to the seller’s side.

(4) The Plaintiff supplied KimB with KRW 20,00,00,000 on October 31, 2008, and KRW 101,00,000 on December 23, 2008, and KRW 42,900,00 on December 23, 2008, and KRW 50,000 on each of the above sales contracts (DD 42,900,000, MaximumF, and KRW 50,000,00, Hagu 55,80,000, HaH 46,280, and 00) under each of the above sales contracts.

(5) On the other hand, KimB testified to the effect that, not having requested the Plaintiff to develop and sell the land before the instant partition, KimB only sold the said land to the Plaintiff and received 121,000,000 won as the price.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 5 (including each number), witness KimB's testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(4) According to the above consulting agreement, the Plaintiff purchased each of the instant land from KimB and then sold it to ChoB, etc. under the legal status of 0, i.e., health, development, management, and disposal of real estate (land), and (i) advice, proposal, and disposal related to the execution of the contract, and consultation cost of KimB, are not entirely included in the content of the Plaintiff’s implementation of the contract, but rather, the total transaction amount and its remainder and its payment date are not only indicated, but also the remainder of the purchase price of the instant land to be 0, and the Plaintiff should transfer its ownership to KimB, and the Plaintiff should pay the remainder to KimB, and the Plaintiff would actually pay the down payment and remainder to the Plaintiff at the expense of each of the above 0,000, and the Plaintiff would be liable for the purchase and sale agreement between the Plaintiff and KimB, in light of the fact that the contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and KimB, and that each of the above purchase and sale agreement was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s payment of each of each of the instant land.

3. Conclusion

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