If there is any fraud or other unlawful act, the exclusion period for capital gains tax shall be 10 years.

If there is a fraud or other unlawful act, the exclusion period for capital gains tax shall be 10 years. In addition, as long as the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, the existence of the expression of intent should be recognized as stated, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof that denies the contents of the statement.

The exclusion period for the imposition of national taxes under Article 26-2 (1) 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2013Gudan53588 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

1. AA;

2. BB

1. The director of theCC;

2. The director of the D Tax Office.

June 27, 2014

August 19, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On December 6, 2012, the decision that the director of the tax office imposed capital gains tax of KRW 177,531,680 (including additional tax of KRW 114,677,487) on Plaintiff A for December 6, 2002, and that the director of the tax office imposed capital gains tax of KRW 176,820,420 (including additional tax of KRW 114,118,149) on Plaintiff BB on December 3, 2012.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 4, 2002, the Plaintiffs transferred O-O-O large 238 square meters, O-O-O large 44 square meters, and O-O-O large 33 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) to EE and FF, and filed a transfer income tax return with the transfer value of KRW 605,00,000,00 after completing the registration of transfer of ownership on December 2, 2012.

B. On March 31, 2010, when Nonparty FF, the purchaser of the instant land, reported the acquisition value of the instant land to Nonparty HH to KRW 960,00,000, and upon conducting capital gains tax investigations, the Plaintiffs notified the Defendants of the taxation data by underreporting the transfer value of the instant land. The Defendants corrected the transfer value of the instant land at KRW 960,000,000, and subsequently, on December 6, 2012, the Defendants issued an additional tax of KRW 177,531,680 (including additional tax of KRW 114,67,487) to Plaintiff AA for the transfer income tax of KRW 177,531,680 (including additional tax of KRW 114,67,487) for the transfer income tax of the instant land at KRW 176,820,420 (including additional tax of KRW 114,114,194) for Plaintiff BB for December 3, 2012.

C. On February 18, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on each of the instant dispositions, but was dismissed on May 16, 2013.

Each entry of Gap 1, 2, and Eul 1 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings, in which there is no dispute for recognition;

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The defendants' assertion

The instant lawsuit was initially filed with the Seoul Eastern District Court and was transferred to the Seoul Administrative Court on August 26, 2013. Since the effect of the instant lawsuit by the Plaintiffs on August 26, 2013, which was 90 days after the date on which the written ruling of the Tax Tribunal on each of the instant dispositions was served on May 21, 2013, the date on which the written ruling of the Tax Tribunal was served was served, the instant lawsuit filed after the lapse of 90 days from the date of service of the written ruling, is unlawful.

B. Determination

In a case where a lawsuit brought to a court without jurisdiction has been transferred to the competent court due to the confirmation of transfer decision, pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 40(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, and Article 40(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, the period for filing a lawsuit shall be determined at the time when the initial lawsuit was filed. Thus, whether the period for filing a lawsuit is complied with shall also be determined at the time when the first lawsuit was filed. On July 18, 2013, where 90 days have not elapsed from May 21, 2013, the date on which the plaintiff served a written ruling. The court of the lawsuit brought a lawsuit in this case to the Seoul East District Court for lack of jurisdiction on August 17, 2013, the court of the lawsuit transferred the case to the Korean court, and accordingly, the lawsuit in this case was filed before the expiration of the period for filing the lawsuit, as long as the facts received by our court on

3. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

(a) the purpose of the exclusion period of taxation;

Each disposition of this case is imposed five years after the expiration of the reporting period for the determination of the tax base of the land of this case. The exclusion period of taxation is also illegal.

(b) Violation of the principle of substantial taxation (transfer value);

Although the plaintiffs were aware of the transfer value of the land of this case at KRW 605,00,00,000, which is the actual amount received, they came to know of the fact that the transfer value of the land of this case was KRW 800,000 through the JJ of Nonparty III and Plaintiff AA, who delegated the sale of the land in the process of litigation on each of the dispositions of this case, was 80,000,000,000 won. Accordingly, the transfer value of the land of this case is KRW 80,000,000,000,000,000 from the buyer’s agent without permission, and it is evident that the remaining KRW 160,00,000,000,000,000 was deducted from the buyer’s agent. However, the disposition of this case on the premise that the Defendants

4. Whether the disposition is lawful.

(a) Facts of recognition;

1) The document of evidence 3 written by the plaintiffs, non-party EE and FF (hereinafter "the contract of this case") states that the date of the preparation is blank. The purchase price is KRW 605,00,000, and the down payment is KRW 100 million when the contract is made, the intermediate payment is paid KRW 300,000 on November 6, 2002, and the intermediate payment is paid KRW 205,00,000 on November 29, 2002. The special agreement is a blank.

2) The contract for the certificate of 4th of October 16, 2002 entered into between the plaintiffs and the non-party EE and F (hereinafter referred to as "the contract for 2nd of this case") states that the date of preparation shall be 960,000,000 won for the purchase price, 10,000 won for the contract, 30,000 won for the intermediate payment, 560,000,000 won for the remainder payment on November 6, 2002, and 560,000,000 won for the remainder payment on November 16, 2002. The special agreement column provides that the payment shall be made after deducting the K Bank loan out of the remaining purchase price. The price for the remaining land maintained and constructed at the time of the maintenance and construction division, Cheongdong-dong, Magsung-si, Magsung-si (74mm2) shall be paid by the purchaser (based on the sale price) and all remaining taxes shall be established by agreement between the seller.

3) Prior to the transfer of the instant land, the Plaintiffs prepared a power of attorney to delegate the sale of the instant land to Nonparty III to KRW 800 million. III affixed such power of attorney and the Plaintiffs’ seal imprinted each of the instant 1 and 2 contracts, and the instant one contract was prepared as a multilateral contract for the return of transfer income tax. In this case, the instant two contracts are the principal contract for the instant land.

4) On December 27, 2010, Nonparty EE reported the transfer income tax on the instant land and reported its acquisition value to KRW 960,000,000. On December 27, 2010, Nonparty EE claimed that the actual acquisition value of the instant land was KRW 960,000,000 even when Nonparty EE filed a request for pre-assessment review of transfer income tax on the transfer of the instant land and the instant building on its ground, and attached the instant two contract form with evidentiary documents.

Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, Gap 3, 4, 5, and Eul 6 (including the number, if any), the witness III's testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

B. Determination

1) Whether the exclusion period of taxation has expired or not

According to Article 26-2 (1) 1 and 3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, national taxes cannot be imposed after the expiry of the five-year period from the date when the national taxes can be imposed. However, in case where a taxpayer evades national taxes by fraudulent or other unlawful means, national taxes may be imposed for ten years. "Fraud or other unlawful acts" means deceptive schemes or other active acts which make the imposition and collection of taxes impossible or considerably difficult.

In addition, the facts acknowledged above are the witness III's testimony. As to the conclusion of the contract of this case on the land of this case, the plaintiffs agreed to prepare a prompt renewal contract with the buyer as delegated to the III and JJ, and accordingly, it is possible to conclude that the contract of this case was prepared at the same time as the contract of this case, which is the principal contract (However, there is a difference in the purchase price under the multiple contract) and the report of transfer income tax was completed, and there is no counter-proof. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiffs' act constitutes "Fraud or other unlawful act" under Article 26-2 (1) 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the exclusion period of imposition of transfer income tax on the transfer of this case is 10 years, and that the disposition of this case was conducted before the expiration of 10 years from June 1, 2003, which is the day on which the transfer income tax can be imposed on the transfer of this case is legitimate.

2) Whether the actual transfer value is KRW 960,000 or not

As long as the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the expression of intent as stated therein, unless there is any clear and acceptable reflective evidence that denies the content of the statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da67602, 67619, Jul. 9, 2009). In addition, in cases where a person who prepares private document recognizes the establishment of a seal imprint, etc. of the relevant private document, the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been established, barring any special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Du21218, Dec. 13, 2012).

The contract of this case 2 is a contract in which the third party, who was delegated the right to enter into the sales contract by the plaintiffs, affixed the seal of the plaintiffs, and thus the authenticity of the contract was recognized. On the other hand, with respect to the plaintiffs' assertion that the purchase price of the contract of this case 2 is stated on the buyer's side without permission without permission, the testimony of each of the evidence No. 1 and No. 7 and some of the testimony of the witness III is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other counter-proof.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the transfer price of the instant land was KRW 960,00,000, which is the actual transaction price as stated in the instant contract 2. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiffs’ assertion on different premise is without merit, and the instant disposition is lawful.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed for lack of reason.