early 201J 2397 ( October 04, 201)

The disposition that considers the purchase price as the transfer price under the sales contract is legitimate.

The disposition imposing capital gains tax is legitimate in view of the fact that it is difficult to deem that the exchange contract was concluded, and that the entire land transferred is still deemed to have been transferred as the Plaintiff’s ownership, as long as the exchange contract was not concluded, and that the sale price under the sales contract is deemed as the transfer price of the transferred land.

Article 96 of the Income Tax Act

2012Guhap1182 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

United StatesA

Head of the tax office

May 11, 2012

June 8, 2012

1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part on which the Defendant seeks revocation of the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000,000, which belonged to the Plaintiff on December 1, 2011, against the Plaintiff is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 000 of transfer income tax for the year 2006 against the Plaintiff on June 10, 201 and the imposition of KRW 000 of transfer income tax for the year 2006 against the Plaintiff on December 1, 201 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 26, 2006, the Plaintiff transferred an O-ri 000 square meters of land for a factory (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) to Gangnam-si, Masung-si, and reported the transfer value to KRW 000,000.

B. On March 4, 2005 between the Plaintiff and the Gangwon-gu, submitted by the Defendant, based on the sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) dated March 4, 2005, the Defendant deemed that the transfer value of the instant land was 000, and the transfer value of the instant land was increased or corrected, and issued a tax notice to the Plaintiff on June 10, 201, on which the transfer income tax was increased or corrected, and KRW 452,445,260 (including additional tax) was imposed on the Plaintiff for the year 2006 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On June 22, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a request with the Tax Tribunal for a trial, stating to the effect that “the Plaintiff, at the end of 2004, exchanged the land from YG, the owner of Ori-ri 000 forest land adjacent to the instant land, 13,917 square meters (hereinafter “the adjoining land”) to exchange the part of 89 square meters among the instant land and the part of 565 square meters among the adjoining land (hereinafter “the instant exchange land”), and that “the entire amount of KRW 00 is not the purchase price of the instant land,” and that “the purchase price of the instant land is not the purchase price of the instant land.”

The Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to rectify the tax base and tax amount according to the results of re-audit as to whether the exchange of the instant land was established or not and the transfer value for the instant land.

D. On December 1, 201, the Defendant conducted a reinvestigation according to the decision of the Tax Tribunal, and notified the Plaintiff that the instant disposition is justifiable (hereinafter “instant notice”).

[Ground of Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 8, and Eul evidence 1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the part of the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition imposing capital gains tax of KRW 000 on the Plaintiff on December 1, 201, which belonged to the Plaintiff on December 1, 2006 is lawful

The notification of this case made by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on December 1, 2011, and the notification that the Defendant conducted a reinvestigation according to the decision of the Tax Tribunal and notified the Defendant of the results of processing that the previous disposition was justifiable cannot be deemed to be subject to administrative litigation. Therefore, deeming the notification of this case as a taxation disposition and seeking its revocation is unlawful.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In 2004, the Plaintiff agreed to exchange the instant exchange land with 89 square meters of the instant land and the instant exchange land. On March 2, 2005, the Plaintiff was actually transferred the instant exchange land from leG and was subject to permission for conversion of the said exchange land from the leG market.

After that, Gangnam purchased most of the land in this case and the adjoining land owned by YoonG, and as above, the owner of the land in this case was in fact changed according to an exchange contract, and the Plaintiff and Gangnam-A determined not only the land in this case but also the exchange land in this case as well as the land in this case. However, in the process of the registration of ownership transfer, the purchase price for the land in this case was determined as KRW 000, and the purchase price for the land in this case was made on May 11, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the "the plaintiff contract in this case"). Accordingly, on a different premise, the disposition in this case that the defendant imposed the transfer income tax on the ground that the transfer price of the land in this case is 00, as the transfer price of the land in this case is 00, is illegal.

B. Determination

갑 제4， 5호증， 갑 제6호증의 l 내지 5， 을 제3호증， 을 제4호증의 4， 을 제5호증， 을 제7호증， 을 제8호증의 1， 3 내지 8의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합해 보면， ① 원고와 윤GG은 이 사건 토지 중 89평 부분과 이 사건 교환토지를 서로 교환하려고 하였으나 실제 교환계약서를 작성하지는 않았고， 원고와 윤GG은 상대방에게 원고 주장의 교환계약의 이행을 요구하지는 않은 사실，② 원고는 이 사건 교환토지에 관하여 윤GG으로부터 토지사용승낙서를 받아 산지전용허가를 신청하였으나 2005. 3. 4. 강AA과 사이에 이 사건 매매계약서가 작성되자 그 다음날 산지전용허가가 포함된 공장설립변경신청을 취하한 사실，③ 강AA은 2005. 2. 5. 윤GG과 사이에 이 사건 인접토지 대부분을 포함하여 매매계약을 체결하였고， 2006년 5월경 이 사건 토지를 포함하여 그에 대한 소유권이전등기까지 완료한 사실，④ 강AA과 윤GG은 위 매매계약의 특약사항으로 매매목적물에 원고의 이 사건 토지 중 89평 부분을 포함시켰고， 강AA과 원고는 이 사건 매매계약서에 이 사건 교환토지를 매매목적물로 명시하여 포함시킨 사실， ⑤ 이 사건 매매계약서에는 매수인 강AA의 주민등록번호가 'XXXXXX - 0000000'로 정확하게 기재되어 있고 강AA의 인감도장이나 간인이 날인되어 있는 반면， 이 사건 원고계약서는 매수인 강AA의 주민등록번호가 'XXXXXX -000000'로 기재되어 있고， 강AA의 인감도장이 아닌 막도장이 날인되어 있으며 간인도 되어 있지 않은 사실 등이 인정된다. 위 인정사실에 비추어 알 수 있는 다음의 사정들， 즉 ① 원고가 이 사건 교환토지에 대하여 산지전용허가를 신청하는 등 이용에 나아갔으나 윤GG으로부터 토지사용승낙을 받아 신청한 것에 불과하고 이러한 사정만으로는 원고 주장의 교환계약이 체결되었다고 보기는 어려운 점，② 이 사건 원고계약서는 강AA의 주민등록번호 뒷자리를 6자리만 기재하거나 간인이 되어 있지 않은 등 원고와 강AA 사이에 진정하게 작성된 것인지 매우 의심스러운 점，③ 원고와 윤GG 사이에 이 사건 교환토지 등에 관한 교환계약이 성립되지 않은 이상 이 사건 토지 전부가 여전히 원고의 소유로서 강AA에게 양도되었다고 할 것인 점，④ 강AA으로서는 이 사건 토지와 이 사건 인접토지 대부분을 전부 매수하는 이상 굳이 이 사건 교환토지 부분과 이 사건 토지 중 89평 부분을 따로 분리하여 미등기 전매 방식으로 매수하지는 않았을 것으로 보이는 점 등의 사정을 종합해 보면， 원고는 이 사건 매매계약서에 기재된 바와 같이 매매대금 000원에 이 사건 토지를 강AA에게 양도하였다고 할 것이다. 따라서 피고가 이 사건 토지의 양도가액을 000원으로 보아 원고에게 양도소득세를 부과한 이 사건 처분은 적법하다.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, among the instant lawsuits, the part of the Defendant’s claim for revocation of the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000,000 for the Plaintiff on December 1, 2011 against the Plaintiff is dismissed, and the remainder of the Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.