Daegu District Court 2012Guhap1855 ( October 24, 2012)

Early High Court Decision 2012Gu0848 (No. 26, 2012)

reporting capital gains tax by attaching false contracts through an agent constitutes fraud or other wrongful acts.

In view of the fact that an employee prepares a false contract in accordance with the rule of experience and the effect of an act of acting as an agent by delegation is against the person delegated with the intention of the employee, even though there is no benefit acquired by the employee of the certified judicial scrivener office by false report, it constitutes fraud and other unlawful acts, since there is no evidence

2012Nu2703 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

AAAA

Head of North Daegu Tax Office

Daegu District Court Decision 2012Guhap1855 Decided October 24, 2012

April 5, 2013

April 26, 2013

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. A port consumption shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 on January 6, 2012 that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on January 6, 201 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 22, 2002, the Plaintiff sold OOOOOO apartment store 204 (hereinafter referred to as “instant commercial building”) that the Plaintiff used to OOOOOOO apartment store in Gangdong-gu, Seoul (hereinafter referred to as “OOOOOOO apartment store”) to OB for KRW 000 (hereinafter referred to as “the sales volume”).

B. As to the instant trade, the Plaintiff filed a transfer income tax report with the acquisition cost of KRW 000 and transfer value of KRW 000 in the name of the Plaintiff.

C. As a result of the investigation on OB, the head of Samsung Tax Office confirmed that the instant purchase price was KRW 000, and notified the Defendant thereof.

D. On January 6, 2012, the Defendant decided and notified the Plaintiff of the transfer value of the instant transaction at KRW 000,000, the transfer income tax of KRW 000 for the year 2002 (hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff appealed on February 7, 2012 and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on April 26, 2012.

[Based on Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 5, Eul evidence 1, 2, and Eul evidence 1, 2, and Eul evidence 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

OBB, the purchaser of the commercial building of this case, requested the head of the certified judicial scrivener office without the Plaintiff to report the transfer income tax, and the head of the affairs thereof did not know of the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff did not know it, and the Plaintiff’s act does not constitute a case of evading the tax due to “Fraud or other unlawful act.” Therefore, the exclusion period of imposition of the transfer income tax of this case is five years, and the disposition of this case was made after the exclusion period of imposition expires, and is illegal.

3. Relevant statutes;

Attached Form 3 is as listed in the "relevant Acts and subordinate statutes".

4. Determination

According to Article 26-2(1)1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8139 of Dec. 30, 206), and Article 26-2(3) of the former sales contract, and national taxes can not be imposed after the expiration of five years from the date on which the relevant national taxes can be imposed, and if the taxpayer evades national taxes by fraudulent or other unlawful means, national taxes can be imposed for seven years, and if the taxpayer fails to release the tax base report by the statutory due date, for 10 years. "Fraud, other active acts" means acts that make it impossible or considerably difficult to impose and collect taxes, and the taxpayer's tax base is determined based on the reported value, and it constitutes 00 or 1000,0000,0000,0000,0000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.1).

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.