If a false double contract is made, the exclusion period for imposition of national taxes is applied to 10 years.

In the case of submitting a false double sales contract which states the acquisition value or transfer amount under the excessive tax amount to the tax office, the exclusion period for imposition of national taxes is applied to 10 years by deeming that the transfer income tax was evaded by fraud or other unlawful act.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 81,986,864 for the Plaintiff on September 10, 2008 shall be revoked.

1. Circumstances of dispositions;

A. On January 7, 2002, the Plaintiff acquired 155,000,000 square meters from ○○○○○○-dong 253-2, 149 square meters (hereinafter “the instant site”) and 75.70 square meters of a single-story house above the ground (hereinafter “the instant old building”) from ○○○○-dong 253-2, 200,000 won, and transferred the said site and building (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) to 330,00,000 won on the instant single-story house with KRW 60,000,000.

B. On March 8, 2002, the Plaintiff filed a preliminary return on the tax base of capital gains tax with the purport that there is no capital gains tax to pay the transfer value of the instant real estate at KRW 110,000,000 with the acquisition value of the instant land and the previous building at KRW 120,000,000.

C. On September 10, 2008, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition to rectify and notify the transfer value of the instant real estate as KRW 330,00,000,00, and the acquisition value of the instant land and the previous building as KRW 120,00,000, and the extension cost as KRW 60,000,00, and the extension cost as KRW 109,571,850, which reverts to the year 2002.

D. After that, the Plaintiff filed a grievance with the National Ombudsman regarding the instant disposition, and the Defendant made a correction to the effect that the amount of capital gains tax on November 30, 2009 would be reduced to KRW 81,986,864 according to the recommendation for correction (approval of transfer value of KRW 330,00,000, acquisition value of KRW 155,000,000, and conversion cost of KRW 62,13,491) of the above National Ombudsman’s recommendation for correction, and that the Defendant reached the Plaintiff around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without any dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The instant disposition was conducted after the lapse of the exclusion period of national tax assessment for five years from June 1, 2002, on which the date on which the transfer income tax on the transfer of the instant real property may be imposed, and thus its defect is serious and obvious.

(2) The instant disposition was conducted after the lapse of the five-year period of national tax collection (extinctive prescription) from June 1, 2002, on which the date on which the transfer income tax on the transfer of the instant real estate can be collected, and thus, the disposition is unlawful and its defect is serious and apparent.

B. Determination

(1) Whether the instant disposition was made within the exclusion period for national tax imposition

Article 26-2(1)1 and 3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes cannot be imposed after the expiry of the five-year period from the date on which a taxpayer is entitled to impose national taxes. However, in cases where a taxpayer evades national taxes by fraud or other unlawful means, national taxes may be imposed for ten years. "Fraud or other unlawful means" means a deceptive scheme or other active act that makes it impossible or considerably difficult to impose and collect taxes, and it does not constitute mere a false declaration or a failure to pay taxes without accompanying such an act (see Supreme Court Decision 97Do2429, May 8, 1998). However, in determining the tax base on taxes based on the reported value, the preparation and submission of a false contract containing a false declaration by a taxpayer underreporting the reported value, while granting credibility of the actual transaction value, making it substantially difficult for him/her to impose and collect taxes by deception or other unlawful means (see Supreme Court Decision 200Do1941, May 8, 1998).

As to the instant case, the Plaintiff acquired KRW 120,00,00 from 120 to 120,00,00,00, the Plaintiff had 60,000 to 120,000, and had extended the 2nd floor to 59.42m2 and 9.3m2,000,000 to the above single-story house, and transferred the said site and building to 330,000,000,000,000 to 10,000,000,0000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,000,000,00.

In this regard, the Plaintiff delegated the registration of ownership transfer and acquisition tax and registration tax-related tax relations to a certified judicial scrivener office, and the Plaintiff also delegated the business of reporting and paying transfer income tax with the Plaintiff’s consent. In the preliminary return process of transfer income tax in a certified judicial scrivener office, the Plaintiff voluntarily prepared a false double sales contract stating the acquisition value or transfer amount excessively or insufficiently, and submitted it to the competent tax office. Thus, the Plaintiff did not have any intent to such act. However, there is no particular evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, since the plaintiff is judged to have evaded capital gains tax by fraud or other unlawful acts, the exclusion period of imposition of capital gains tax on the transfer of real estate of this case shall be ten years. The disposition of this case was conducted within a period of ten years from June 1, 2003, where the transfer income tax can be imposed on the transfer of the real estate of this case. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the exclusion period has been imposed after the expiration of the exclusion period.

(2) Whether the pertinent disposition was made within the period of national tax collection

According to Article 27(1) and (3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 12-3(1)1 and 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, in cases of national taxes, including transfer income tax, for which a duty payment duty becomes fixed by a tax base and a return of tax amount (i.e., a returned tax payment method), where a taxpayer fails to make an accurate tax base and a return of tax amount, or a tax authority issues a tax payment notice in the course of determining the tax base and the amount of tax by omitting a part of the return, the extinctive prescription of the right to collect national taxes shall proceed from the date following the due date of payment determined by the duty payment

However, as seen in the instant case, the Plaintiff acquired 15,00,000 won of the instant land and building before 15,00,000 won, and thereafter, 20,000 won was extended to 59.42 square meters of the instant one-story house, 9.3 square meters of the instant land and building, 330,000,000 won for 300,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 30,000,000 won for 30,000,000 won for 20,000 won for 30,000,000 won for 30,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 30,000,000 won for 30,000,000 won for 20,000 won for acquisition value of the instant land and building.

Therefore, it is difficult to accept this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise.

3.In conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.