Seoul Administrative Court 2012Gudan20079 ( March 31, 2013)

The disposition of this case does not fall under the invalidation of the disposition of this case, and thus, the plaintiff's claim with the lapse of the period for filing a lawsuit is

The plaintiff's protection of rights and interests through the cancellation of the disposition of this case shall be relieved by filing a claim for the cancellation of the disposition of this case through legitimate administrative litigation. The plaintiff did not seek the cancellation of the disposition of this case by his own negligence.

2013Nu25803 Invalidity of Claim for Unfair Profits

The United States of America

The Director of Gangnam District Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Gudan20079 decided July 31, 2013

April 22, 2014

May 13, 2014

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the defendant confirmed that the disposition of imposition of the capital gains tax belonging to the year 2006 against the plaintiff on March 2, 2010 is null and void.

1. Details of the disposition;

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it refers to Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Assertion and determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In calculating the tax base of capital gains tax related to the disposition of this case, the plaintiff asserted that the actual transaction price is the amount agreed between the plaintiff and KimB, and the sales contract is true and correct, but there was a number of actual cases even if it is unclear about the payment of the price. Thus, even though the price of the plaintiff's preliminary return is obviously the actual transaction price, the defendant's act of denying the return price of the plaintiff and calculating the conversion price based on the amount much less than the market price at the time of the transfer without reasonable grounds is in violation of the laws and regulations on the calculation of capital gains tax, and that the disposition of this case is invalid because the defendant's act of denying the conversion price based on the amount much less than the market price at the time of the transfer is in violation of the laws and regulations on the calculation of capital gains tax.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) Provisional registration under the Plaintiff’s name

From September 13, 1999 to April 15, 2002 with respect to the apartment of this case, the provisional registration of the right to claim transfer of ownership was made three times on the ground of "the promise to trade the name of the plaintiff", and each registration of cancellation was made three times on the apartment of this case."

With respect to the apartment of this case, the lessor was drafted on September 6, 200 with the lease term from October 23, 2000 to October 24, 200 with the lease term as the Plaintiff, KimB, Cho Jae-B, Cho Jae-won, the lease contract for the apartment of this case was concluded on October 19, 200 with the lease term from October 23, 200, and the lease contract was concluded on October 23, 200 with the fixed date marked on October 23, 200, and again, the lessor was drafted on October 19, 200 with the lessee as the Plaintiff, the lessee as ChoCC, and the deposit as the OOOO.

3) Trade between the Plaintiff and KimB

"A sales contract (No. 2-1) of April 14, 2002 between the plaintiff and KimB made up the purchase price with the OOO (if the purchase price is combined with the contract deposit, the remainder OOO, the down payment, and the remainder, the remainder of the down payment is known and transferred to the debt) as the OOO won, and the sales contract (No. 2-2-2 of the document No. 1 of the document No. 1 of the document No. 2 of the document No. 1 of the document No. 2 of the document) was prepared separately from the plaintiff and KimB, and the sales contract (No. 2-2 of the document No. 1 of the document No. 2 of the document No. 14 of April 14, 2002) was made up with the remainder of the contract deposit as the OOO on April 14, 202, and the registration of ownership transfer was made between the plaintiff and the plaintiff on April 15, 2002."

With respect to the instant real estate, the debtor KimBro, the creditor as the DDR, and the establishment registration of a new maximum debt amount of the OOOO on September 8, 1997 was revoked on November 29, 200, and on June 29, 2000, the registration of a new maximum debt amount of the OOOOO was revoked on April 15, 2002, and on the same day, the debtor was the plaintiff, the creditor as the plaintiff, and the creditor as the creditor as the EE bank, the establishment registration of a new maximum debt amount of the OOOO was completed.

(v)registration of transfer in the name of the FF;

As to the instant real estate: (a) on September 29, 2006, the Plaintiff’s ownership registration was made under the name of the Plaintiff on September 27, 2006 on the grounds of “trade on September 27, 2006; (b) on October 11, 2006, ChoG, a real estate broker, issued a receipt to the effect that: (c) he/she was acting as a broker for the amount of trading and received the amount of KRW OG from the Plaintiff as a commission. Meanwhile, with respect to the sale and purchase between the Plaintiff and KimB, the Plaintiff was transferred the Plaintiff’s receipt to the effect that: (d) OO of the deposit; (d) borrowed OF; (e) OF loans; (e) OF loans; (e) OF loans; (e.g., (e., Apr. 15, 2002; and (e) 2002. 16B05.26.

On December 4, 2006, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant the return of tax base of transfer income and the dispatch of tax base of transfer income with acquisition value as OOO, transfer value as OOO, and other necessary expenses as OOOOO. On September 22, 2009, the Defendant sent a notice of tax investigation to the Plaintiff on September 22, 2009, notified the Plaintiff of the tax investigation, and the Plaintiff conducted a tax investigation with the Plaintiff up to December 2, 2009 according to the investigation schedule, and then the Plaintiff calculated the transfer tax amount based on the amount converted by the standard market price on the ground that the reported amount cannot be confirmed as the actual transaction price.

7) Plaintiff’s pre-assessment review and objection

On January 27, 2010, when filing a request for pre-announcement of pre-announcement of the Defendant on January 27, 2010, the Plaintiff asserted that the pre-announcement of pre-announcement of the Defendant was confirmed by the sales contract, lease contract, and cash receipt copy, etc.

The Defendant stated that the real estate seller of the real estate that the Plaintiff transferred should have objective evidence to prove clearly the transaction relation as the Plaintiff’s wife. The real estate broker who prepared a sales contract stated that the real estate broker gave rise to the difference in the amount of the purchase and sale price. Of the Plaintiff’s assertion, there is no evidence to support the lessee’s actual residence. The portion of the Plaintiff’s claim regarding the return of the lease deposit is different from the amount of the registered right of the relevant provisional registration, and the portion of the loan set-offOOO is different from the amount of the registered right of the relevant provisional registration. While the part concerning the acquisition of the financial institution’s obligation is contrary to the claim for the return of the lease deposit and the right to collateral security is terminated, even if it is contrary to the claim for the return of the lease deposit and even if so, it cannot be subject to the assumption of the obligation even if it is not supported by the details of the financial transaction submitted by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for re-determination on the ground that the reported amount

In other words, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant disposition, but the Seoul Regional Tax Office dismissed the Plaintiff’s objection on June 25, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, 14, 15, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Gap evidence Nos. 8 through 13 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

In order for the administrative disposition to be called the invalidation of crowdfunding, it is insufficient to say that there is an illegal cause, and the defect is objectively obvious as it is serious in violation of the important part of the law. In determining the importance of the defect, it is necessary to examine the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the law from a teleological perspective and to reasonably consider the specificity of the specific case itself (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 94Nu4615, Jul. 11, 1995; Supreme Court Decision 2003Du2403, Nov. 26, 2004).

First, in relation to whether the disposition of this case violated the laws and regulations regarding the calculation of the tax base of transfer income, the evidence alone submitted by the plaintiff is insufficient to acknowledge that the defendant violated the laws and regulations related to the calculation of the tax base of transfer income, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and instead, the above facts are acknowledged. As to the plaintiff's submission of the tax base of transfer income report and the dispatch of the dispatch of business report, the public official in charge of the defendant's tax office can find the facts of the disposition of this case based on the calculation of the conversion price of the actual transaction price because the materials for confirming the actual transaction price cannot be confirmed because the materials for confirming the actual transaction price are insufficient or insufficient to inquire the plaintiff, etc. for the necessity of performing his/her duties in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations, and it cannot be found that the facts of violation

Next, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the disposition of this case is against the principle of equality because it is unfair discrimination against the plaintiff, and only the evidence submitted by the plaintiff was transferred to the plaintiff by KimB, the seller, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the defendant denied the agreed amount under the sales contract and made the disposition of this case. Rather, according to the facts acknowledged earlier, the public official in charge of the tax office conducted a tax investigation on the plaintiff's submission of the return of tax base of transfer income and the dispatch of the dispatch of the business income, and found the circumstances that make it difficult to confirm the actual transaction price as a result of the investigation, and the defendant conducted the disposition of this case. Accordingly, the plaintiff's assertion on the other premise is without merit.

Finally, in order to apply the principle of trust and good faith to the act of the tax authority in the tax law relationship as to whether the defendant's disposition of this case violates the principle of trust protection, first, the tax authority must give the taxpayer a public opinion that is the object of trust, second, the taxpayer has no reason for the taxpayer to believe that the expression of opinion is justifiable, third, the taxpayer must trust the expression of opinion and act in which the taxpayer is in trust. Fourth, the tax authority's disposition against the above expression of opinion should result in infringing the taxpayer's interest by making the disposition against the above expression of opinion (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du403, Sept. 5, 2003). The plaintiff's payment of acquisition tax and registration tax as to the apartment of this case based on OOOOO, but there is no dispute between the parties to the tax return and the submission of property tax for several years, and therefore the defendant is not obligated to examine whether the plaintiff's return of transfer income tax and its submission without any reason to the plaintiff's return of transfer income tax.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed, and the judgment of the court of first instance with the same conclusion is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.