Incheon District Court 2016Guu51546 ( October 16, 2017)

The transfer (investment in kind) and acquisition time, transfer and acquisition time of the land of this case shall be adequate.

In calculating transfer margin, the same shall not apply to the plaintiffs solely on the basis of the difference between the acquisition value recognized or applied to the residents or the plaintiffs, or the criteria therefor.

Article 96 of the Income Tax Act: Time of Transfer or Acquisition under Article 98 of the Income Tax Act

Seoul High Court-2017-Nu-40978 ( December 13, 2017)

KimO et al. 27

OO Head of the tax office

2017.19

. 13, 2017

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The judgment of the first instance court shall be revoked. The imposition of capital gains tax (including additional tax) for each amount stated in the column of "amount of capital gains tax corrected in the attached Form 2 that the defendant corrected for the plaintiffs on May 2015.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for this Court concerning this case are as follows. The reasoning for this Court is to add or add part of the judgment of the first instance as follows. With regard to the argument that the plaintiffs should supplement again in the trial, the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance is the same as the stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and therefore, the meaning of the language used in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (hereinafter the same shall apply to the judgment of the first instance).

○ 2. The second reasons add "in the project district for the creation of a transmission city" to "in the project district for the creation of a transmission city", and the "domination" of the same act shall be read as "buling".

○○ 2-1, 1022-1, 1022-3, 1035-1, and 1035-3 land (such land shall be changed to the administrative district around March 6, 2006, Incheon ○○○○-dong, 20-22, 20-23, 22-21, and 22-222, and each of the above land was incorporated into ○○ New City, 2-1, and 22-22; hereinafter the above land shall be specified only by the lot number after the change) among the land in Part 7 of the 2-1st ○○-dong, Incheon, ○○○-dong, 102-1, 103, and 1035-3.

○ The phrase “the December 30, 2015.12.30” in Part 7 of Part 3, the phrase “the disposition of this case” in Part 13, the phrase “the disposition of this case” in Part 15, and the phrase “ September 2005,” in Part 15, shall be read as “the disposition of this case” and “ January 2006,” respectively.

○○ Asset Trust Co., Ltd. (○○ Asset Trust Co., Ltd.) in the 4th and 7th and 9th, all of the ○○ Asset Trust Co., Ltd. (○○ Asset Trust Co., Ltd.) will be placed in the ○○ Real Estate Trust Co., Ltd., Ltd., and the ○○

The fifth 5th 16th "Joint Building Association" is "each Joint Building Association to which the plaintiffs belong".

The first 7th 3th 5th " was not an association........................................... the fifth 5th "......" were ".............", the fifth 7th "......", and "........"

○ 8 pages 16, 2005, "Papn around September 2005", shall be "Papn around January 2006".

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

원고들을 포함한 이 사건 토지의 지주들은 2005년부터 2006년까지 1차 사업약정을 체결할 당시 지주공동사업을 경영할 것이라는 의사를 분명히 표시하였고, 위 사업약정은 공동사업 경영 목적과 각 당사자의 출자의무, 이익분배 비율과 관련된 내용을 포함하는 등 조합의 성립요건을 모두 충족하여 민법상 조합계약에 해당한다. 실제로 ▧▧▧▧플래닝은 1차 사업약정 체결 이후 2007년경 2차 사업약정을 체결하기 전까지 공동사업 시행을 위하여 어민생활대책용지 관련대출 업무협약 체결, ○○2-1구역 주상복합건물 신축공사 설계 용역계약 체결 등 1차 사업약정에 따른 후속절차를 진행하였다.

If so, the plaintiffs invested in kind the land of this case at the time of the first business agreement, and the second business agreement and the real estate management trust agreement of this case fall under the process of constructing multi-family housing under the first business agreement, and they cannot be viewed as a separate association agreement or investment in kind. Therefore, the disposition of this case, which is premised on the fact that the investment in kind was made around 2007, was made after seven years from the exclusion period of imposition

B. Determination

1) 살피건대, 갑 제49호증, 갑 제50, 51호증의 각 1 내지 3, 갑 제52호증의 1 내지 4, 갑 제53, 54호증의 각 1, 2의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, ▧▧▧▧플래닝은 1차 사업약정에 따라 지주들에게 금융기관 대출이 이루어질 수 있도록 2005년 주식회사 ▢▢▢▢은행과 어민생활대책용지 관련대출 업무협약을 체결하고, 1차 사업약정 내용에 따라 원고들을 비롯한 지주들의 대출금 이자를 부담한 사실, ▧▧▧▧플래닝은 또한 주식회사건축사사무소 유○○○와 2005. 6. 9. ○○ 어민생활대책용지 건축계획 및 CG 작성 용역계약을 체결하고 2006. 3. 2.에는 ○○2-1구역 주상복합건물 신축공사설계 용역계약을 체결하였으며, 주식회사 ○○건설과 2006. 3. 24.과 2006. 12. 28. 시공사 선정을 위한 기본협약 및 변경협약을 체결하고, 2006. 8. 31.에는 주식회사 □□플랜 등과 송도 주상복합 프로젝트 컨설팅 용역계약을 체결한 사실, 한편, ▧▧▧▧플래닝은 주식회사 신○○와○○와 함께 2006. 4. 17. ○○건축조합 창립총회 겸 사업설명회를 개최하고, 2006. 6. 2.경에는 어민생활대책용지 주상복합홍보관을 개관한 사실이 인정된다.

2) However, to establish a cooperative under the Civil Act, two or more members should be specified first of all in order to establish the first business agreement and the second business agreement as seen earlier; the process and contents thereof; in particular, in the case of the first business agreement, the primary purpose is to secure the business site through the loan of the purchase fund for the land for taking measures which serves as the foundation for the progress of the prop-joint business; and the opening date of each joint construction association on the land of 20-22,20-23, 22-21, 22-21, and 22-22 as of May 1, 2007, it is difficult to view that each time indicated in the attached Form 2, which is the time when the plaintiffs asserted as investment in kind, has already been established, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

3) 또한, ▧▧▧▧플래닝이 위 1)에서 본 바와 같이 원고들을 비롯한 20-22, 20-23, 22-21, 22-22 토지의 지주들과의 1차 사업약정 체결 전후로 진행한 각종 업무의 경우,반드시 조합이 성립된 후에 이를 전제로 해서만 진행이 가능한 성격의 업무가 아니라 사업의 시행사로서 사업 초기 단계에 한편으로는 조합의 설립 작업을 진행하면서 이와 동시에 진행할 수도 있는 성격의 업무로 볼 수 있으므로, 위와 같은 각종 업무가 진행되었다는 사정이 1차 사업약정 당시에 이미 조합이 성립되어 있었다고 볼 만한 결정적인 사정에 해당되는 것은 아니다.

4) Therefore, the plaintiffs' above assertion cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and all appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.