Seoul Administrative Court 2010Gudan880 ( October 20, 2010)

Seocho 209west 3310 ( November 26, 2009)

Whether the purchase price has been settled before the date of designation of the land speculation area;

Although the transferor asserts that the transfer date is prior to the date of designation of the land speculation area and the remaining price is converted to a money loan for consumption, the method of lending the transaction price to the transferee and returning it again from the transferee is merely the appearance of the same as the liquidation of the purchase price of land.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

Park ○

The Director of the Pacific District Office

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. Costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 670,749,060 against the plaintiff on July 1, 2009 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court's ruling is as follows: (a) the part concerning the plaintiff's second argument on the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance No. 7 (2) is the same as the ground for the judgment of the court of first instance except for the second argument as set forth in the following 2. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article

2. Parts to be dried;

(2) As to the second argument by the Plaintiff

(A) The phrase "if the remaining amount is changed to a loan for consumption" under the General Rule of the Income Tax Act refers to a quasi-loan for consumption as stipulated in Article 605 of the Civil Act, where the transferee agrees to convert the obligation to pay the remaining amount to the transferor into a loan for consumption.

2. According to the facts found in paragraph (c)(2) above, the Plaintiff remitted 1.46 billion won to thisA at a branch office of 05 ○5 ○05 Korean bank from June 29, 2005 to 1.466 billion won, and this was the number of money received by means of remitting the same amount to the Plaintiff at the same branch office of 13:29 on the same day. This is merely an exchange of money equivalent to the same amount for the purpose of creating an appearance, such as the settlement of the remaining purchase and sale price of the instant land, and this is not a conversion of thisA’s obligation to pay the remaining purchase and sale price to the Plaintiff into a loan for consumption.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit, under the premise that the agreement between the Plaintiff and EA constitutes a quasi-loan for consumption under Article 605 of the Civil Act (Common Provisions of the National Tax Service is merely an administrative rule that issued an interpretation and enforcement guidelines of the tax law within the tax authority, and is not an effective law that binds the court or the people (see Supreme Court Decisions 86Nu96, May 26, 1987; 91Nu13670, Sept. 8, 1992). The transfer taxation requirement of the Income Tax Act is the transfer of assets, and the satisfaction of the agreement should be paid to the extent that the payment was almost paid in full (see Supreme Court Decisions 82Nu286, Feb. 14, 1984; 92Nu834, Apr. 27, 1993).

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.