Appropriateness of any assertion that the sales contract was prepared differently from the fact

Although the sales contract, which is the basis of taxation, is prepared differently from the fact, and the lower value of the sales contract is the actual contract, it is argued that the sales contract is the real contract, but it is more than the sales amount of the contract claimed as the actual contract, and it cannot be recognized as it is different from the general transaction practices such as prior to the date of preparation of the contract.

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

Article 14 (Real Taxation under Framework Act on National Taxes)

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 324,850,372 against the Plaintiff on July 8, 2008 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 10, 1997, the Plaintiff closed the business of building construction sales on April 13, 2007.

나. 피고는 원고가 2001. 4. 16. 부산광역시로부터 부산 ◇구 ◇◇◇동 2272-5 택지개발지구 내 상업시설용지 958.5㎡(이하 '이 사건 토지'라 한다)를 1,494,761,000원에 매수하기로 매매계약을 체결하고, 계약금 298,952,200원을 납부한 상태에서 이 사건 토지를 2,290,000,000원에 매도함에 따라 795,239,000원의 양도차익을 얻은 것으로 보아 2002 사업연도 법인세 신고시 누락된 위 양도차익을 원고의 소득금액에 가산하여 2007. 9. 10. 원고에게 2002 사업연도 법인세 337,702,130원을 경정 부과하였다.

C. The plaintiff appealed and filed a request with the Tax Tribunal on January 30, 2008 through an objection on October 4, 2007, and the Tax Tribunal should include 28,257,120 won of late 202 in deductible expenses when calculating the income amount of the business year. Thus, a request for a trial on this part is accepted, and the remaining request for a trial was dismissed. The defendant corrected corporate tax for the business year 2002, which was corrected and imposed on July 8, 2008 by reducing the corporate tax to 324,850,372 won upon the decision of the Tax Tribunal (hereinafter "the remaining part of the disposition of September 10, 2007").

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Eul evidence 1-2, 1-2, 2-1, 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff asserts that the sales contract between the Plaintiff and Seo-soo, which the Defendant presented as the ground for the instant disposition, is a salted fish drawn up differently from the fact at the buyer’s request, and that the purchase price of the instant land pursuant to the sales contract concluded between the Plaintiff and Nonparty Seo-soo and Nonparty 5 was KRW 1.5 billion, and thus, the instant disposition that was otherwise reported is unlawful

(b) Fact of recognition;

(1) On April 16, 2001, the Plaintiff intended to purchase the instant land from Busan Metropolitan City to KRW 1,494,761,000 and transferred the instant land to 5 persons, other than the Seo ○○, upon paying the down payment.

(2) The real estate sales contract (Evidence B No. 5) drafted between the Plaintiff and the purchaser on December 31, 2001, and the Plaintiff’s two hundred and twenty billion won of the purchase price of the instant land, and the contract amount is KRW 2.29 billion on the side of the statement that “the purchase price of the instant land shall be paid at the time of the contract and the receipt shall be paid at the time of the contract,” respectively, signed by the Plaintiff’s personal seal and letter ○.

(3) A real estate sales contract (No. 2) that the Plaintiff claims as a real sales contract is the date of its preparation is January 10, 2002. The sales price of the instant land is KRW 1.5 billion, and the down payment is KRW 230 million.

(4) According to the financial data submitted by ○○ Regional Tax Office in the course of its tax investigation, the Plaintiff received KRW 150 million from the AAA securities account under the name of ○○ on December 31, 2001, and KRW 90 million from the ○○ Bank account under the name of ○○ Exchange, and KRW 150,000,000,000,000,000,000, including the above amount, from the ○○ Bank account. The amount paid by the parties related to the instant land purchaser to the Plaintiff via the financial data is KRW 1,946,70,000,000 on the sole basis of the amount verified through the financial data.

(5) In the course of the tax investigation conducted by the ○○ Regional Tax Office, the sales contract stating the purchase price of KRW 2.29 billion was entered into as KRW 2.2 billion on behalf of the ○○○○○ Regional Tax Office, and was immediately entered into a sales contract on behalf of the ○○○○○○○○○ Branch, and stated that a sales contract stating the purchase price of KRW 1.5 billion was entered into on the basis of the practice under which the sales price was set at time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 4, 5, 7-1, Eul evidence 8-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

On the other hand, as shown in the plaintiff's argument that the purchase price of the land in this case is KRW 1.5 billion, Gap evidence 2-2 and 3 did not believe it, and instead, it was acknowledged as a whole in light of the facts acknowledged above, i.e., ① the plaintiff did not present evidence to support it in addition to the argument that the actual purchase price of the land in this case is KRW 1.5 billion; ② the amount paid to the plaintiff by the related party, including Seogh, including the purchaser, as the purchase price, exceeds KRW 1.9 billion, and exceeds KRW 1.5 billion, ③ Disposition No. 2-2 of this case's evidence No. 2, claiming that the plaintiff's actual sale price is KRW 1.5 billion, and the plaintiff's claim that the contract was prepared and sealed on January 10, 2002, which is 200 billion, is 1.5 billion in light of the fact that the contract was prepared and stated on December 31, 2001.

3. Conclusion

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