Suwon District Court 201Guhap2478 (2012.02.09)

Cho High Court Decision 2009Du4298 ( December 01, 2010)

We cannot accept the assertion that it is a partnership business contract which is not a sales contract.

In light of the fact that the land was transferred at the time of tax investigation and the written confirmation that the transfer income tax was not reported, the argument that the land contract is not a sales contract but an identical business contract cannot be accepted, and there is no special obstacle to the progress of administrative litigation on the disposition even if the relevant criminal case is not finalized.

2012Nu9712 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

XX

Head of Sungnam Tax Office

Suwon District Court Decision 201Guhap2478 Decided February 9, 2012

September 20, 2012

October 11, 2012

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The 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 000 won belonging to the year 2007 against the plaintiff on September 9, 2009 is revoked (it appears that penalty tax is included in the recorded tax amount).

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is reasonable, and thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. In the appellate court, the plaintiff asserts that the real intention of the contract entered into with the plaintiff is not to sell the land of this case simply, but to newly construct and sell multi-household houses on the land of this case in order to distribute the profit of the business, but the disposition of this case based on the erroneous premise that the contract content entered into between the plaintiff and OraA is not a "Dong business contract" but a "sales contract" is illegal.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, such as the fact that if the tax authority received a written confirmation from a person liable to pay taxes in the course of conducting a tax investigation, it may not readily deny the value of the written confirmation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Du2928, May 22, 1998; 2001Du2560, Dec. 6, 2002; 2006Du8068, Sept. 25, 2008).

However, according to the facts cited earlier and evidence, ① the Plaintiff’s new tax investigation of the Plaintiff at the time of the instant tax investigation with regard to the Plaintiff’s 1, 00,000 won for the instant land (27,000,000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,000,000,0000,000,000,00000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,00,00,00,00).

3. If so, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.