Whether the time of transfer is the date of liquidation of the purchase price after converting the transfer balance into a loan for consumption.

A quasi-loan agreement cannot be deemed to have fully extinguished the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the remainder of the purchase and sale, and only pure loan obligation remains. However, it is reasonable to view that a quasi-loan relationship was established to make the Plaintiff comply with the provisions of a loan for consumption in order to secure the payment of the remainder of the outstanding balance while maintaining its identity with the existing obligation to pay the remainder of sale.

Article 96 of the Income Tax Act

Article 98 of the Income Tax Act

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax for the year 2006 against the Plaintiff on April 19, 2007 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 17, 2006, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract to sell ○○○○○-dong 155-○○○ 172m2, 155-○ 128m2, 155-○ 128m2, 155-○ 72m2, 155-○ 155-○ 17m2, and 17m2 (hereinafter the above 4m2, including the above 4m2, referred to as the instant real estate) sales price of KRW 450,000,000.

B. The Plaintiff received KRW 50 million as the down payment per sales contract from ○○ Open, but entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff to receive the remainder of KRW 400 million by calling for a loan for consumption, and thereafter received the above KRW 400 million from ○ Open on March 23, 2006.

C. Meanwhile, although ○○ Open was paid the down payment of KRW 50 million per sales contract, an agreement was concluded to receive the remainder of KRW 400 million from the call as a loan for consumption, and thereafter, the said amount was paid KRW 400 million from the open opening of ○○ on March 23, 2006.

C. Meanwhile, on February 21, 2006, the instant real estate was designated as a real estate speculation area other than the instant real estate, and on February 27, 2006, the ownership transfer registration under the open name was made.

D. On April 21, 2006, the Plaintiff: (a) filed a preliminary return of tax base on February 17, 2006, a transfer date prior to the designation of an speculative area with respect to the instant real estate, based on the standard market price; (b) however, the Defendant deemed the transfer date of the instant real estate as February 27, 2006, which was the date of ownership transfer registration; (c) calculated gains on transfer based on the real transaction price; and (d) issued a disposition imposing capital gains tax of KRW 127,230,470 to the Plaintiff on April 19, 2007 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1-1, 2-2, Gap evidence 2-1, 2-2, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 14, 15, and Gap evidence 18-1 and 2

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The date of the sale contract for the real estate of this case was concluded on February 17, 2006 by the Plaintiff and ○ Open made an agreement to convert the obligation to pay the remaining purchase price of KRW 400 million for the real estate into the loan obligation for consumption. The obligation to pay the remaining purchase price was fully fulfilled on the date of the sale contract, and the obligation to pay the remaining purchase price was remaining only for the loan obligation of KRW 400 million to ○

Therefore, the transfer time of the instant real estate is deemed to be February 17, 2006 when the purchase price is fully liquidated. Thus, the Defendant’s disposition in this case, which was issued on the date of registration of transfer of ownership, is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 96 of the Income Tax Act

Article 98 of the Income Tax Act

Article 104-2 of the Income Tax Act

C. Determination

On February 17, 2006, the Plaintiff and ○○ Open Co., Ltd. agreed to convert the obligation to pay 400 million won for the instant real property into the loan obligation for consumption is a quasi-loan agreement pursuant to Article 605 of the Civil Act. Under the above agreement, ○○ open is the Plaintiff’s obligation under the above quasi-loan agreement.

이러한 경우 특별한 사정이 없으면 통상적인 준소비대차계약에 의하여 구채무는 소멸한 것으로 볼 수 있을 것이나, 과연 이 사건에서 위 준소비대차계약으로 인하여 ○오픈의 원고에 대한 매매잔대금 지급채무가 소멸되어 이 사건 부동산의 매매대금이 청산된 것인지 여부에 관하여 보건대, 앞서 인정한 사실과 갑제3호증, 갑제18호증의 1, 2의 각 기재 및 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 점들, 즉, ① 이 사건 준소비대차계약서에서, 원고와 ○오픈이 이 사건 부동산의 매매대금 청산일을 2006.2.17.로 약정하였으나 ○오픈이 이를 이행하지 않았다고 밝히고 있어, 위 준소비대차계약 당시 원고와 ○오픈 사이에 위 매매대금이 청산되지 않았던 것으로 보이는 점, ② 이에 따라 원고와 ○오픈은 이 사건 준소비대차계약을 체결하면서, 이러한 준소비대차계약이 청산되지 않은 이 사건 부동산의 매매대금 4억 원에 관한 채권확보를 목적으로 한다는 것을 분명히 하였던 점, ③ 또한 ○오픈이 위 준소비대차계약서에서 '당초 약정일(이 사건 부동산의 매매계약서에 기재된 매매꼐약일 이전에 원고와 ○오픈 사이에 이 사건 부동산에 관한 매매약정이 잠정적으로 이루어진 날인 것으로 보인다)'로부터 '잔금' 지급일까지 매매잔대금에 관한 이자를 지급하기로 약정하여 이자의 대상이 되는 원금채무가 잔대금채무라는 점을 밝히고 있는 점, ④ 부동산매매계약의 실무상 매매계약일 당일에 매매계약과 더불어 잔금을 모두 지급하여 대금을 청산하는 일을 매우 이례적인 점, ⑤ 매매잔대금채무를 대신하여 소비대차계약을 체결하면서 통상적인 소비대차와 달리 원고와 ○오픈 모두 그 채무의 변제기를 특정하지 아니하였던 점, ⑥ 또한 매매잔대금 지급채무는 소유권이전등기 채무와 동시이행관계에 있음에도 불구하고 그 지급을 담보할 어떠한 조치도 취하지 않은 채 이를 단순한 소비대차채권으로 전환한다는 것은 쉽게 받아들이기 어려운 점, ⑦ 원고와 ○오픈은 이 사건 부동산이 곧 주택외투기지역으로 지정될 것이라는 사실을 알고 있었던 점, ⑧ 이에 따라 원고와 ○오픈은 매매잔대금채무를 소멸시킬 진정한 의사 없이 위 부동산이 투기지역으로 지정되기 전에 잔금을 청산한 것과 같은 외형을 갖추어 조세부담을 피하기 위한 목적으로 이 사건 준소비대차계약을 체결한 것으로 보이는 점 등을 종합하여 볼 때, 이 사건 준소비대차계약으로 인하여 기존채무인 원고의 매매잔대금 지급채무가 완전히 소멸되고 순수한 소비대차채무만이 남았다고 볼 수는 없고, 다만 기존의 매매잔대금지급채무와 동일성을 유지하면서 위 잔금의 지급확보를 위하여 소비대차의 규정에 따르게 하고자 하는 취지의 준소비대차관계가 성립되었다고 보는 것이 타당하다.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the purchase price for the instant real estate was liquidated on February 17, 2006, which was the date of the conclusion of the instant quasi-loan loan contract, and the purchase price for the instant real estate should be deemed to have been liquidated on March 23, 2006, which was actually paid to the Plaintiff by KRW 400 million.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the time of transfer of the real estate in this case is before the date of liquidation and the registration of transfer of ownership on the real estate in this case has been completed on February 27, 2007. Thus, the defendant's disposition in this case premised on this point is legitimate, and the plaintiff's assertion against this is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.