early 208 Before 2697 ( October 01, 2008)

The act of drawing up a double contract and underreporting the transfer value constitutes fraud or other wrongful means.

The act of preparing and submitting a false double contract in which the amount of transfer is underfinitely stated in order to grant credibility to the false amount and conceal the actual transaction value by underreporting the transfer value constitutes "Fraud or other fraudulent act that significantly makes it significantly difficult to impose and collect taxes by actively deceptive act."

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

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 of KRW 112,963,240 against the Plaintiff on May 6, 2008 shall be revoked.

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

가. 원고는 1997. 12. 30. 대전 서구 ♉♉동 산 40 임야 5,950㎡(이하 '이 사건 토지'

D.) The sales contract for the content of this case (hereinafter referred to as 'the sales contract for reporting of this case') was prepared by the △△△ non-8 persons (hereinafter referred to as 'the buyers of this case').

B. On January 6, 1998, the Plaintiff submitted the above sales contract under the premise that the above sales price is the actual transaction price (transfer value of KRW 272,400,000, acquisition value of KRW 152,230,000), and reported the tax base and tax amount of capital gains tax of the instant land to the Defendant, and voluntarily paid capital gains tax of KRW 27,037,852 thereafter.

C. Of the buyers of this case, from July 1, 2004, 200 to March 27, 2007, 2007, ○○○ et al. sold their own shares on the instant land. The amount of transfer stated in the sales contract for reporting the instant land is different from the transfer amount stated in the sales contract for reporting the Plaintiff’s actual transaction price at the time of purchasing the instant land from the Plaintiff, and reported it as the acquisition price. Of them, the buyers whose actual transaction price was confirmed pursuant to the sales contract (hereinafter “the sales contract for the instant real transaction”).

D. Accordingly, on May 6, 2008, the Defendant determined that there was omission of the Plaintiff’s report on capital gains tax as of January 6, 1998, and imposed a disposition of imposition of KRW 112,963,240 on the remainder after deducting the previously paid tax amount from the capital gains tax calculated as the standard market price at the time of transfer, which is KRW 553,945,00,000 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] The non-contentious facts, evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including a natural disaster, if any), the purport of the entire pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's principal

1) Article 26-2(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that a national tax shall not be imposed upon the lapse of the five-year period from the date on which the national tax may be imposed, provided that a taxpayer may not be imposed upon the lapse of the ten-year period from the date on which the national tax may be imposed, if the taxpayer evades a national tax, or obtains a refund or deduction by fraud

① The case where the Plaintiff did not simply file a return or under-reported the tax base does not constitute an unlawful act stipulated in the above Act, and ② the transfer value was calculated as the standard market price in 198 when the Plaintiff reported the transfer income tax, and thus, even if the Plaintiff under-reported the transfer value as the actual transaction price, such an act does not constitute fraud or other unlawful act under the above Act.

Nevertheless, it is illegal to impose a transfer case, which is judged that the ten-year exclusion period has not elapsed since the plaintiff excluded the tax by fraudulent or other illegal act.

2) In selling the instant land, the Plaintiff delegated the authority to sell the instant land and pay taxes to the consignor and the tax accountant of the Republic of Korea to deal with the instant land, and the Plaintiff cannot be held liable for unlawful acts, since the Plaintiff was unaware of the fact that the △△△ in advance completed a double contract with a lower amount than the actual transaction price and filed a report on the transfer value based on the double contract with the Plaintiff.

(b) Related statutes;

The entries in the attached Table shall be as follows.

C. Determination

1) Article 26-2(1)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that the limitation period for the right to impose national taxes shall be ten years from the date on which the national tax can be imposed if the taxpayer evades a tax as a "Fraud or other unlawful act". The term "Fraud or other unlawful act" in this context refers to a deceptive scheme or other active act that makes the imposition and collection of taxes impossible or considerably difficult, and it does not constitute a mere failure to file a tax return under the tax law or failure to make a false tax return or pay a tax without accompanying such an act (see Supreme Court Decision 97Do2429, May 8, 1998). However, in determining the tax base based on the reported value, the taxpayer’s filing a false return in return for the amount of credibility and preparing and submitting a false contract in which the tax return was made in order to conceal the actual transaction value constitutes "Fraud or other unlawful act that significantly makes it difficult to impose and collect taxes as an active deception (see Supreme Court Decision 201Do314, Jun. 14, 2004).

However, in light of the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3 and Eul evidence Nos. 2 and the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff, on December 30, 1997, sold the land of this case to the purchaser of this case, and prepared a sales contract of this case. At the time, the plaintiff demanded the purchaser of this case to prepare a false sales contract stating a sale price less than the actual transaction price in order to pay transfer income tax less than the actual transaction price. The purchaser of this case, upon the plaintiff's request, prepared a sales contract of this case for reporting the sale price less than the actual transaction price, and the plaintiff submitted a sales contract for reporting of this case upon reporting the transfer income tax of the land of this case on January 6, 1998.

Therefore, in the transfer income tax that is determined on the tax base of the tax return by the taxpayer, the plaintiff shall prepare and submit a false double contract in which the amount of transfer is less than the amount of transfer in order to grant credibility when underreporting the amount of transfer report and conceal the actual transaction amount. As such, the plaintiff's act constitutes a "Fraud or other unlawful act that significantly makes it difficult to impose and collect taxes by actively deception.

In addition, even though the Plaintiff, as alleged by the Plaintiff, reported the transfer value as the standard market price at the time of filing a return on the transfer income tax of the instant land, Articles 96(1) and 97(1) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5580, Dec. 28, 1998) provides that the transfer value shall be the standard market price at the time of transfer, in principle, in exceptional cases where the actual transaction value is lower than the standard market price and taxpayers are favorable to taxpayers, the taxpayer shall be required to make a return on the actual transaction value within the due date for final return of tax base and then the transfer value shall be calculated based on the actual transaction value. However, in this case, the Plaintiff did not conclude that the actual transaction value (53,945,000 won), which is much lower than the standard market price at the time of filing a return on the transfer income tax of the instant land (272,40,000 won), and submitted a false sales contract for filing a return with the transfer value.

Therefore, the plaintiff is judged to have evaded national taxes due to "Fraud or other unlawful acts", and the exclusion period of the right to impose capital gains tax due to the transfer of the land in this case falls under 10 years.

2) According to the purport of subparagraph 2 (including each natural disaster) and the entire pleadings, when selling the instant land, the Plaintiff requested the instant purchaser to submit a sales contract for the instant report stating the sales price lower than the actual transaction price, and if necessary for the registration thereafter, the Plaintiff requested the instant purchaser to submit a sales contract stating the actual transaction price. In concluding a sales contract with the instant buyer, it can be acknowledged that the Plaintiff affixed his seal impression on the part of the instant sales contract for the instant report and the instant actual transaction contract, while entering into the sales contract with the instant buyer. In fact, the instant land was considerably high-priced land because it exceeds KRW 50 million,00,000,000,000 for the officially announced price at the time of 197, and thus, the Plaintiff’s disposal of such property was only a broker and a certified tax accountant and did not participate therein, in light of the empirical rule, it is difficult to easily understand that the Plaintiff prepared a sales price lower than the actual transaction price for the instant land and made a report.

3) Therefore, this case’s disposition is legitimate on the premise that the exclusion period of the imposition of national taxes falls under 10 years since the Plaintiff evaded taxes by ’Fraud or other unlawful acts’.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.