beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in accordance with Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, together with the purport of the entire pleadings:
On November 15, 2012, the Plaintiff sold to the Defendant the right to purchase a resettled housing site as a person subject to relocation measures with respect to the Busan Sea Free Economic Zone C development project (hereinafter “instant right to purchase”) at the price of KRW 143 million.
(hereinafter “instant sales contract”). B.
On April 3, 2015, after the subject housing site was specified and the name of the buyer was changed, the Defendant prepared a sale contract for the right to sell the instant housing site with the selling price of KRW 24,946,40, and the selling price of the right to sell the housing site with the selling price of KRW 30,946,40, and submitted a voluntary report for capital gains tax to the Plaintiff on April 30, 2015 (=30,946,400 - 24,946,400 won - 24,946,400 won) with the approval of the Busan and the Busan Free Economic Zone Authority, and paid KRW 1,750,00,00 in the name of the Plaintiff.
C. However, upon recommending a revised return, the tax base on September 18, 2017 was under-reported by the competent tax office, the Plaintiff paid capital gains tax of KRW 22,897,300,000, and local income tax of KRW 22,289,730,00,000. However, the Plaintiff again paid capital gains tax of KRW 143,000,000,000 as the tax base for gains actually transferred to the Plaintiff through a tax investigation at the competent tax office (50% of gains from transfer) 7,150,000,000,000 as the calculated tax (40% of the difference between the calculated tax amount and the reported tax amount), additional tax for insincere payment (the overdue interest corresponding to the overdue interest from November 30, 2013 to the date of the preliminary return), which was deducted from the total amount of income tax paid.
2. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that transfer income tax at the time of the instant sales contract.