Since there is no evidence to deem that a claim for the purchase price is impossible, the transfer price of real estate shall be the purchase price under the sales contract.

In the event that a taxable bond has no possibility of realizing its income in the future, the burden of proof should be clarified by the person proving such circumstance.

Article 96 of the Income Tax Act

2015Guhap141 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax, etc.

GG

○ Head of tax office

on January 23, 2015

on January 28, 2015

1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the claim for revocation against the disposition imposing local income tax is dismissed. 2. The remaining claims of the Plaintiff are dismissed.

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

Defendant’s transfer income tax of 113,704,520 won and land for the Plaintiff on June 10, 2014, which reverts to the Plaintiff in 2009.

Each disposition of imposition of KRW 11,370,450 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Acquisition of real estate by the plaintiff

On November 17, 2004, the Plaintiff acquired 3,029 square meters of land for 439 square meters in ○○○○○○○ ○○○○○○○ ○○○ ○○○ ○○○ ○○○ ○○ ○36-5 land for 428 square meters in the same Ri, 440 square meters in 755 square meters in the same Ri, 441 factory site in 442 square meters in the same Ri, 439-1 miscellaneous land in 439-12 square meters in the same Ri, and buildings above each of the above land (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) in 231,110,000 won in the auction procedure of real estate rent 203 square meters in 00.

B. Assignment of each real estate of this case

On August 5, 2009, the Plaintiff decided to transfer each of the instant real estate to CCC in total at KRW 520,000,000,000, and completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to each of the instant real estate to CCC on October 1, 2009.

C. The defendant's disposition

After investigating the transfer income tax related to each of the instant real estate, the Defendant: (a) deemed the transfer value of each of the instant real estate to the CCC on June 10, 2014 to be KRW 520,000,000; and (b) imposed and notified the transfer income tax of KRW 113,704,520 (including additional tax of KRW 43,904,324) and KRW 11,370,450 for local income tax of KRW 209 (hereinafter referred to as “disposition for imposition of transfer income tax of this case”; and (c) on the grounds that the Plaintiff did not report the transfer income tax of this case on June 10, 2014.

(d) Procedures of the previous trial; and

On August 6, 2014, the Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition of imposition of capital gains tax, filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on August 6, 2014, but was dismissed by the Tax Tribunal on November 6, 2014.

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

2. The plaintiff's assertion and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff, while transferring each of the instant real property, received only KRW 30,000,00 according to the Investment Contract (Evidence A7) concluded between CCC and DD from CCC. Thus, the transfer value of each of the instant real property cannot be deemed to be KRW 520,00,000. Ultimately, the Plaintiff did not acquire gains from transfer while transferring each of the instant real property. Accordingly, the Defendant’s disposition of the instant real estate is against the principle of substantial taxation and is unlawful.

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

3. Whether the part of the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of imposition of local income tax is legitimate

We examine ex officio the legitimacy of this part of the lawsuit.

According to Article 177-4(1), (2), and (5) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9924, Jan. 1, 2010), resident tax to be imposed (limited to local income tax under the current Local Tax Act) is a local tax to be paid to the head of a Si/Gun/Gu having jurisdiction over the place for payment of income tax. If the head of a tax office collects income tax based on a method of assessment and notice of correction or determination under the Framework Act on National Taxes or the Income Tax Act, even if the resident tax to be imposed and notified along with the method of assessment and notice is deemed to have been imposed and notified by the head of the relevant Si/Gun/Gu, and thus, the defendant who seeks to revoke the said disposition of taxation and the head of the relevant Si/Gun/Gu having jurisdiction over the place for payment of income tax (see Supreme Court Decision 200

Therefore, the part seeking revocation of imposition of local income tax among the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it is against a non-qualified person.

4. Whether the disposition of transfer income tax of this case is legitimate

A. Relevant legal principles

The Income Tax Act adopts the so-called principle of confirmation of a right to taxable income by deeming that income has been realized in a case where a right that is a cause of income does not actually accrue even if there is no income, and adopts the so-called principle of confirmation of a right to taxable income by deeming that income has been realized. However, even in cases where a claim that is the cause of income has occurred, if it is objectively apparent that the claim that is the cause of income subject to income becomes impossible to recover due to the debtor’s bankruptcy, etc. and that there is no possibility of realizing the income in the future, the income tax on such economic benefit should lose the premise, and thus, it cannot be imposed on such income as taxable income. However, in such a case, it must be clearly stated that the taxpayer has no income by asserting and proving such circumstance (see Supreme Court Decision

[See] In addition, the issue of whether the subject of taxation is unable to recover the subject of taxation is specific details and details.

In light of the following circumstances, the debtor's financial status, payment capacity, etc., and the social norms are considered.

Such determination should be based on an objective assessment method (Supreme Court Order 2002 October 25, 2002).

201Du1536, see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du1536

(b) Fact of recognition;

The whole pleadings are made on the evidence and evidence set forth in the evidence set forth in Nos. 4 to 7, and Nos. 1 and 2

Investment Agreements

A: CCC

B: DD

Article 1:Business Purposes

A shall establish a new corporation, and shall have ○○○○ Patent and Technology Transfer Team currently in existence.

and shall carry on a new business.

In full view of the purport, the following facts can be acknowledged.

1) DD on April 11, 2002, stocks for the purpose of manufacturing, selling, etc. of water quality purification products.

G HH was established, and the site and case of the factory of HH, Co., Ltd. for each of the instant real property

The water was used as water.

2) On November 17, 2004, the Plaintiff’s ○○ District Court 2003 000 square meters of each of the instant real estate.

In the auction procedure of movable property, proceeds of KRW 231,110,000 have been acquired, and thereafter, to D.

PP Co., Ltd., Ltd., which operates each real estate of DD, ○○○○ (Representative)

WW, which is the archs of DD, and hereinafter referred to as '○○○○'), shall be used as the place of business of DD.

The provision was made available to the public.

3) The Plaintiff offered each of the instant real estate as security on September 20, 2007, and LL Bank

(hereinafter referred to as 'L bank') with the name of the debtor ○○○○○ and KRW 300 million.

loans from the SS Savings Bank Co., Ltd. to KRW 200 million among them

The existing loans have been repaid, and the remaining KRW 100 million has been used as business funds.

4) On September 23, 2009, CCC concluded an investment contract with DD with the following content.

Article 3:New Investment

(1) A new investment cost shall be responsible for completing the relocation of a factory in progress of an auction.

(2) All the affairs after investment shall be conducted by a newly established corporation.

(3) A shall open the auction of the Gyeongnam Bank, pay A a tax in arrears with the name of the Plaintiff to Haan-gun.

The factory shall be loaned under the name of A on credit.

Article 4:Share of Shares

① A 51% B 49%, and all managements are responsible for A, and technology is responsible for B.

② A shall pay 30 million won (30,000,000) to the Plaintiff, and KRW 30,000,000 on September 30, 209

(10,000,000) Japan on November 15, 2000 (10,000,000) by December 30, 2000

(10,000,000) shall be paid in installments.

5) On August 5, 2009, the Plaintiff sold each of the instant real estate to CCC and the Plaintiff to CCC.

The sales contract was entered into, and on October 1, 2009, to CCC each of the instant real estates.

The registration of ownership transfer was completed with respect to each of the instant sub-dongs prepared between the Plaintiff and CCC.

The purchase price of each of the real estate in this case is KRW 520,000,000 (a contract amount)

It is written as KRW 100,00,000, the balance amount of KRW 420,00,000, and the payment date of the balance.

6) On October 1, 2009, CCC paid KRW 30,000,00 to the Plaintiff. On the same day, CCC repaid KRW 324,591,791 to banks with ○○○○○○○○○○○○, and paid KRW 4,884,240 to the Plaintiff’s delinquent local taxes.

C. Determination

As above, the sales contract concerning each of the instant real estates drawn up between the Plaintiff and CCC

The purchase price is KRW 520,000,000, and the Plaintiff entered from CCC on October 1, 2009.

Upon receipt of KRW 30,00,000, CCC paid KRW 324,591,791 on October 1, 2009 to the Plaintiff’s LL Bank’s LL Bank’s loan obligation of KRW 324,591,791, and on the same day, to the Plaintiff’s ○○-gun on the same day.

Recognizing the fact that the delinquent amount of local taxes has been paid in 4,884,240 won, and between CCC and DD

In light of the content of the investment agreement written in this chapter, CCC’s obligations for the Plaintiff’s above loans.

324,591,791 won and the plaintiff's ○○-gun to pay 4,884,240 won in arrears of local taxes.

An agreement agreed to substitute the payment of the amount equivalent to the above amount out of the sales price of each real estate of this case

In conclusion, the Plaintiff appears to be the sum of the sales proceeds of each real estate of this case from CCC.

359,476,021 won (=30,000,000 won + 324,591,791 won + 4,884,240 won) is to be paid.

C. As to the remaining purchase price of KRW 160,523,979 (=520,000,000 - KRW 359,476,021)

under the sales contract entered into with the CCC that such payment may be claimed to the CCC

In that case, there is no evidence that the remaining claim for the purchase price was impossible to be recovered, and such future income is future income.

It cannot be objectively viewed that there is no possibility to realize it.

Therefore, the transfer value of each real estate of this case shall be KRW 520,000,000.

The plaintiff's assertion that differs from this premise is without merit.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the part seeking revocation of imposition of local income tax among the lawsuit of this case is unlawful.

The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed. It is so ordered as per Disposition.

this decision is rendered.