Cho Jae-201-Seoul Office-3500 ( November 14, 2012)

disposition imposing a comprehensive income tax on the plaintiffs who are members of a reconstruction association which is regarded as a joint proprietor of a housing reconstruction association and who is the members of the housing reconstruction association.

As long as the income earned by the reconstruction association of this case from general sale is appropriated to the construction cost to be borne by the members of the reconstruction association including the plaintiffs, the income must be regarded as belonging to the reconstruction association and distributed to its members.

Article 43 of the former Income Tax Act in the case of joint ownership, etc.

Seoul Administrative Court-2013-Gu 2730 global income and revocation of disposition

JeonA et al. 10

s. Head of the tax office

April 15, 2014

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed. 2. Costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Imposition of global income tax for the year 2003 listed in the attached Table 1 List against the Plaintiffs by the Defendant

(w).

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Plaintiff Jeon Soo-A, SeoB, HighCC, GoE, LaborF, Park Jong-G, Park H, Kim II, Kim J, and Lee JK (Plaintiff Gangnam-L is the spouse of the network Lee K, and the above Plaintiff 11, including the Plaintiff Gangnam-L, succeeded to the liability for tax payment of the network Lee K-K.) is the owner of the O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-building housing association (hereinafter referred to as “the reconstruction association of this case”) established for the purpose of newly constructing an apartment after removing the existing old house (hereinafter referred to as “the reconstruction association of this case”). The reconstruction association of this case, after obtaining the approval of the reconstruction project on February 17, 200, concluded the reconstruction association of this case with the Plaintiff 20m general rebuilding association of this case and entered the reconstruction association of this case 10m, 5m20m of rebuilding.

D. The Plaintiffs filed an objection and filed an appeal against the instant disposition on September 26, 201, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiffs’ appeal on November 14, 2012.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1 (including the number of each branch), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The Plaintiffs asserted that the instant disposition was unlawful for the following reasons.

(1) The reconstruction association of this case entered into a share contract for the implementation of the reconstruction project with the m integrated construction. According to this, among reconstruction apartments, profits from the sale of the general unit unit 19 households were entirely attributed to the m integrated construction. In addition, Plaintiff Jeon Soo-A, Park GG and Lee N3 purchase 45 square meters instead of the 33th square that they originally agreed to purchase, and additionally paid the difference between the two m integrated construction. Accordingly, the profits from the sale of the general unit 19 households and the profits from the sale of the unit unit 19 households are all attributed to the m integrated construction. Despite the fact that they are not attributed to the reconstruction association of this case or the members of the reconstruction association of this case, the disposition of this case was unlawful, even if it is possible to impose the comprehensive income tax on the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs’ profits from the sale of the unit 19 households, i.e., the profits from the sale of the unit 19 households, and thus, the imposition disposition of this case is unlawful.

(2) The Plaintiff Park GG had reported and paid the value-added tax and the global income tax while running the real estate brokerage business. Since Plaintiff Park GG filed a comprehensive income tax return for the year 2003 and the exclusion period of imposition of the global income tax for Plaintiff Park GG for the year 2003 should be five years, the instant disposition against Plaintiff Park GG was unlawful since it was conducted after the exclusion period expires. (3) The instant disposition against the Plaintiff Park GG was unlawful since it was conducted after the exclusion period expires. (3) The relationship with the construction of the reconstruction apartment of this case and the sales of the general unit for the 19 household for the general sale of the reconstruction apartment of this case, all of the taxes arising from the construction of the reconstruction apartment of this case were not known before the disposition of this case was taken as to whether the Plaintiff reported the global income tax, and the Defendant did not impose the instant disposition after eight years or more since the Plaintiffs moved into the Mmball, the imposition of the penalty tax of this case is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) On January 20, 2001, the reconstruction association of this case concluded an OOO reconstruction contract with the M integrated Construction with the following contents.

1. Project name: Construction of an OOO reconstruction apartment;

2. Construction site: OO-O, O-O, or O-O of the Seoul O-gu;

3. Site area: OO.O.O.O. site area; and

4. Total floor area: OO.O.O. (20 months from the commencement date of works). 6. Contract amount: 4,630,000,000 won (excluding value-added tax);

7. Completion portion: revenues from general sale and substitute 8. Liability period: Two years.

9. Rate of liquidated damages: 1/1,000: Interest rate for delayed payment: 18% per annum; 12. Project operator: the reconstruction association of this case 12. Work executor: Total construction at m.

Article 1(Purpose)The purpose of this Agreement is to provide for matters necessary for the implementation of the project by entering into this Agreement between the instant reconstruction association (hereinafter referred to as the “A”) and the m integrated construction (hereinafter referred to as the “m integrated construction”), which is the contractor, for the reconstruction project of OB as of the OO of Seoul OO-gu, for the purpose of this Agreement, by entering into this Agreement between the reconstruction association (hereinafter referred to as the “O”) and the m integrated construction (hereinafter referred to as the “B”), and to participate as the owner of the construction and to facilitate the construction. On equal terms, Gap and Eul shall supply 20 members of A, on an equal terms, new apartment-type 34 million won for each household, and the members shall pay to Eul the share of 34 million won for each household, and Eul shall complete the project with the share of the remaining apartment units and the members of the association. The legal action of the president of the association shall be regarded as having been conducted with the consent of the members of the association, and shall implement the project in good faith and sincerity.

○ Ground 1, 9-15 floors above ground

○ Apartment: 33 square meters - 24 households, 45 square meters - Article 4 (Payment of Construction Costs) for 15 households

1. Project costs shall be the proceeds from sale in general (19 households), the contributions per household of the members of the association (total of 680 million won), loans secured by a building and land, and other funds;

2. Project costs shall not be used for any purpose other than construction costs;

Article 15 (Delegation of Authority)

A, as the business owner of this reconstruction project, shall deal with the following matters in consultation with B:

1. On the portion of Party A, it shall be determined by the union rules (the determination by drawing lots of floors and lakes), and Party A shall pay Party A's own contributions as the construction cost, and Party A shall not use them;

2. In principle, the shares of a union member shall be occupied in the 33th square, and if a union member wishes to be 45th square, the difference between the 45th square sale price and the 33th square sale price shall be paid and occupied additionally: Provided, That options items shall be separately provided;

3. All proceeds from sale shall revert to B and be appropriated from construction expenses;

1. The shared amount of a partner shall be 34,00,000 won per household, and the total amount shall be 680,000,000 won, and where it shall be determined as 680,000 won, and where it is modified, it shall be additionally borne with project costs.

(2) On April 21, 2003, the application for pre-use inspection submitted to the head of the OO on or around April 21, 2003 is written by the project proprietor by the instant association and m integrated construction roads, and by the contractor, by the comprehensive mining construction. On the other hand, the contract for re-sale of the reconstruction apartment drawn up around September 7, 2002 is written by the seller as the reconstruction association of this case and the m

(3) Of the reconstruction apartments, the ownership preservation steam was completed in the name of the association member, and the general sale portion was completed in the name of the reconstruction association, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed after the registration of ownership preservation was completed in the name of the reconstruction association.

(4) (A) The Defendant confirmed the fact that the instant reconstruction association did not file a registration of business and did not file a value-added tax, and subsequently notified the correction and notification of value-added tax around January 201, and calculated the amount of income accrued in 2003 by the reconstruction association according to the shares ratio of each association member, and notified the Plaintiffs of the comprehensive income tax for the year 2003 as indicated below. Meanwhile, the amount of income accrued to each Plaintiff was calculated by the following methods:

- - omitted -

(B) The Defendant calculated the total amount of KRW 4,684,224,442 (excluding value-added tax) as the sales price for general apartment units sold in lots as well as KRW 328,261,242 (the amount additionally paid for the sale of 45 square apartment units instead of KRW 33 square apartment units that were originally sold by Plaintiff Jeon-A, Park G and Kim N N, a partner of the association) as the total amount of KRW 5,012,485,684 (=4,684,224,42 + + KRW 328,261,242) paid to the association when the association members acquire shares in accordance with the regulations.

(C) The Defendant calculated the amount of income for each Plaintiff by multiplying the ratio of the exclusive use area by the Plaintiff’s unit by the total amount of KRW 5,012,485,684 calculated as above. The Defendant calculated the amount of income by applying the simple expense rate applicable to the Housing Construction and Sales Business Act, and then calculated

(5) On the other hand, mm integrated construction reported the value-added tax on January 2003 and issued a tax invoice of KRW 4,630,000,000, which is the contract price under the contract. On the other hand, on June 5, 2003, the m integrated construction closed around June 5, 2003. (6) The Plaintiffs did not file a comprehensive income tax return on the income arising from the sale of the general rebuilding apartment of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 3, Eul evidence 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) As to the first argument of the plaintiffs

(A) With respect to the general sale of buildings in lots, the reconstruction association of this case generated income equivalent to the amount obtained by deducting the book value and construction cost, etc. of the share in the land for general sale, which is the acquisition cost, from the sale price, and it is reasonable to view that the acquisition cost of the reconstruction association of this case reverts to the members by selling the apartment to the members of the association in excess of the investment price of the members (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du19799, Jun. 10, 2010). As long as it was appropriated to the construction cost to be borne by the members of the reconstruction association including the plaintiffs who received the income of the reconstruction association of this case from the general sale of buildings in lots, the income is all attributed to the reconstruction association and it is distributed to the members of the association. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' assertion that the profit of the general sale of buildings in lots belongs to the comprehensive construction of 19 households or that the general sale price of the housing in lots belongs to the reconstruction association of this case and the general sale price of this case paid to the members of this case.

(B) Meanwhile, pursuant to Article 80(1) and the proviso of Article 80(3) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 7319 of Dec. 31, 2004), the head of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment or the director of the regional tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment or the director of the regional tax office who is liable to make a final return on tax base under Article 70 through 72 or 74 fails to do so, he shall determine the tax base and tax amount of the relevant resident in the relevant year. In cases where the amount of income cannot be calculated by books or other documentary evidence for reasons prescribed by Presidential Decree, the amount of income can be estimated under the conditions as prescribed by Presidential Decree. Accordingly, Article 143(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19327 of Feb. 9, 2006) provides that "one of the "reasons prescribed by Presidential Decree No. 19327 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20137 of Feb. 137 of Feb. 29, 20, 20000). . 1).

According to the above facts, the plaintiffs did not file a comprehensive income tax return on the income accrued from the sale of general apartment units among the reconstruction apartment units in this case. Meanwhile, considering the following purport of the argument as to Eul's evidence, in light of the fact that mm comprehensive construction discontinued around June 5, 2003 and there was no data related to the reconstruction construction of this case, and that at least seven years have passed since the completion of the reconstruction apartment at the time of the disposition of this case, it constitutes a case where there was no necessary account books and documentary evidence in calculating the plaintiffs' tax base, and the plaintiffs constitute a real estate sales broker whose total amount of income in the immediately preceding taxable period is less than 72 million won and who is subject to the application of simplified expense rate, the defendant did not determine the amount calculated by multiplying the amount of income under Article 80 (1) and the proviso to Article 80 (3) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 7319, Dec. 31, 2004; Presidential Decree No. 19327, Feb. 327, 2006) by the amount of this case.

(2) As to the second argument of the plaintiffs

The plaintiffs asserted that they reported the global income tax for 2003, but it is insufficient to acknowledge the same fact only with the statement of No. 5, there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, in light of the circumstances acknowledged by the overall purport of the argument in No. 1-8 of the evidence No. 1-8, that is, there is no entry in the column of the "report on the correction of the global income tax on the plaintiff Park G," and that there is no details of the return of the comprehensive income tax for 2003 by the plaintiff Park G, as a result of inquiries through the National Tax Service’s computer network, there is no details of the return of the global income tax for 2003, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff Park G did not return the comprehensive income tax for 203 years. Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ above assertion that the exclusion period for taxation of the global income tax for 2003 belongs to five years is without merit.

(3) As to the third argument by the plaintiffs

Under the tax law, in order to facilitate the exercise of the right to impose taxes and the realization of a tax claim, where a taxpayer violates various duties, such as a return and tax payment, as prescribed by the Act without justifiable grounds, and where there are extenuating circumstances where it is unreasonable to expect the taxpayer to fulfill such duties, no additional tax may be imposed (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Du930, Nov. 25, 2005). However, in this case, considering the circumstances asserted by the Plaintiffs, it is only due to the Plaintiffs’ failure to file a comprehensive income tax return for 2003 years is due to the land or misunderstanding of the law. The global income tax has a very important meaning for the taxpayer to file a tax return for the following reasons: (a) the taxpayer does not have to file a tax return for seven years from the expiration date of the statutory period of imposition and the statutory period of imposition; and (b) the Plaintiffs’ failure to file a tax return for seven years from the expiration date of the statutory period of imposition and the statutory period of imposition and the statutory period of imposition are different.

(4) Therefore, the Defendant’s instant disposition is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.