Changwon District Court-2017-Gu Partnership-52953 (Law No. 16, 2017)

The facts recognized in a final and conclusive judgment on civil and criminal cases, etc. in the tax judgment may constitute a flexible evidence, except in extenuating circumstances.

It is reasonable to determine the factual judgment of the final criminal judgment as it is, inasmuch as there is no evidence to deem that the facts found in the relevant criminal judgment were erroneous, although all criminal facts were led to confession in the relevant criminal case, and it is not the evasion of capital gains tax in the instant lawsuit.

Article 94 of the Income Tax Act: Scope of Transfer Income

Busan High Court (Chowon) 2018Nu10999

○ ○

○ Head of tax office

Changwon District Court Decision 2017Guhap52953 Decided June 27, 2018

December 12, 2018

January 16, 2019

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 232,782,725 against the Plaintiff on September 1, 2016 by the Defendant shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Plaintiff’s report of capital gains tax for the taxable year 2015

(1) On January 14, 2015, the Plaintiff sold to tinA each real estate listed in attached Table 1 List 1 (hereinafter “A”) and on May 31, 2015, the Plaintiff sold the transfer value of the instant franchise to the Defendant “1,44,50,000 won” (i.e., purchase price of KRW 1,50,000,000 - TV and air conditioners, etc.)

105,500,000 won was reported and paid 3,703,304 won for the taxable year 2015.

(2) On August 24, 2015, the Plaintiff sold each of the real estate listed in attached Table 1 List 2 (hereinafter referred to as “this,” and “case-changing real estate”) to the competent Do governor, Do governor, and on October 31, 2015, the Plaintiff sold the instant exchange real estate to the Defendant at KRW 514,013,620, with the transfer value KRW 514,013,620 for the taxable year in 2015.

Preliminary return of KRW 2,102,043 was made.

B. Tax investigation of the OO regional tax office and the defendant's increased or decreased disposition;

1) The OO of a regional tax office shall transfer income tax on the Plaintiff from May 19, 2016 to July 22, 2016.

After conducting an investigation, the Plaintiff’s investigation conducted tinA with respect to 2050,000,000 (= January 14, 2015)

sale of 2.1 billion won under a sales contract - sale of 50,000,000 won for compensation for damage to tinA

Even if the purchase price was paid, a cover of KRW 1,850,000 shall be prepared, and a sales contract shall be prepared.

Transfer office by means of deducting 105,500,000 won from the transfer value by falsely stating them;

Considering that the acquisition tax was omitted, the defendant was notified of it.

2) Accordingly, the Defendant: (a) on September 1, 2016, KRW 232,782,725 of the transfer income tax for the taxable year 2015 to the Plaintiff.

"A disposition to correct and notify B" (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition to correct the present case"). The plaintiff's request to correct the amount of reduction and the refusal of the defendant.

1) On November 8, 2016, the Plaintiff initially reported the transfer value of the instant exchanged real estate to the Defendant on November 8, 2016

The transfer income tax for the taxable year 2015 is only KRW 152,00,000, not a KRW 152,000,000.

32,29,896 won reduced by 200,482,830 won from 232,782,726 won following the disposition of increase or decrease.

the request for reduction or correction to the effect that the correction is different.

2) On January 5, 2017, the Defendant: (a) on January 5, 2017, as a result of the investigation of the Busan Regional Tax Office, the Plaintiff

The plaintiff confirmed that the exchange real estate was transferred to KRW 500 million, and that the plaintiff was in exchange with the franchise of this case.

Transfer income tax for the taxable year 2015 summing up the transfer income amount to be transferred in mountain; and

232,782,725 won was notified, so correction differently from the content investigated and decided by the OO regional tax office.

The plaintiff's rejection of the plaintiff's request for correction of reduction (hereinafter referred to as "disposition of rejection of reduction of reduction of this case") on the ground that it cannot be said that the plaintiff's request for correction of reduction of reduction was rejected. The previous trial and administrative litigation are

1) The Plaintiff is dissatisfied with the instant disposition of increase or decrease, following the filing of an objection on December 5, 2016, and 2017

“31. 31. The Commissioner of the National Tax Service requested that the transfer value of the Maurhers of this case be KRW 1,702,00,000, and that “the exchange register of this case” and “the transfer value of movable property shall be KRW 152,00,000,000, to rectify the disposition of increase or decrease in this case.” However, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for examination on July 7, 2017.

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with this and filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant.

2) On March 31, 2017, the Plaintiff is dissatisfied with the disposition of refusal to rectify the reduction of the instant case and is thus subject to the Tax Tribunal’s disposition.

Although the Tax Tribunal filed an appeal seeking the revocation of the rejection disposition, the Tax Tribunal filed the appeal on November 6, 2017

The plaintiff intentionally dismissed the appeal. On February 6, 2018, the plaintiff is dissatisfied with the appeal, separate from this case.

The court of first instance filed a lawsuit against the High Court seeking revocation of the disposition of refusal to correct the instant reduction.

(Seoul District Court 2018Guhap1O) was sentenced to a judgment dismissing the above lawsuit, and the plaintiff is so ordered.

After appeal, the above lawsuit is pending in the appeal court [the Busan High Court (original High Court) 2018Nu116O].

2. Relevant statutes;

Attached Form 2 shall be as listed in attached Table 2.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff, while selling the instant telecom with tinA, sold the instant telecom from tinA to tinA.

1,550,000,000 and tinA’s instant exchange real estate owned by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff and the Plaintiff agreed to acquire the instant exchange real estate

tinA around February 1, 2015, determined the acquisition value of the instant exchanged real estate as KRW 152,00,000.

Therefore, the transfer value of the Moel of this case is KRW 1702,00,000 (=1,550,000,000 + 152,00,000)

is:

2) In addition, the Plaintiff acquired the instant exchange real estate from tinA, and thereafter on August 24, 2015.

Since the above exchange real estate was sold in KRW 152,00,000 to the recognition, the quantity of the exchange real estate in this case

The Do value is KRW 152,00,000.

3) Therefore, the transfer value of the Maurel of this case 2050,000,000 won, and the quantity of the real estate exchanged of this case

Transfer income tax for the taxable year of 2015, in comparison with the plaintiff as a whole that the Do value is 500 million won.

232,782,725 won for the rectification and rectification of the instant disposition that was corrected and notified is unlawful.

(b) Fact of recognition;

Recognizing the following facts

1) Each sales contract and sales contract with respect to the instant telecom and exchangeable real estate between the Plaintiff and tinA

Transfer Registration of Ownership

A) On January 2015, the Plaintiff and tinA sell the instant conference to tinA, and the Plaintiff sold it to tinA;

tinA’s cash and the Plaintiff’s obligation to return the deposit of the lease on a deposit basis, and loans to the Plaintiff.

The instant exchange real estate owned by tinA was transferred by transfer to another person.

B) Accordingly, the Plaintiff and Dai Han on January 14, 2015: (a) 2.1 billion won of the sales price of the instant telecom.

A sales contract (No. 1) with a source of origin was drawn up. At the time, the Plaintiff and Dai Han were to make the said sales contract.

Down payment of KRW 725,00,000 other than KRW 200,000 paid in cash:

In lieu of the transfer of the instant exchange real property, tinA on the same day shall give effect to the Plaintiff.

A sales contract (Evidence 2) stating that an exchange real estate is sold in KRW 525,00,000 shall be sold separately.

was drawn up.

C) The Plaintiff and Dai Han paid KRW 1,550,000,000 on February 1, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “the sales price for the instant Maurher”).

Of them, a sales contract (No. 3) with the amount of KRW 105,500,000 for the equipment in the telecom, such as TV, air conditioners, etc.

Then, on March 17, 2015, tinA made this case’s exchange of real property, and tinA made this case’s exchange of real property to the Plaintiff.

The sales contract (Evidence A No. 4) stating that an exchange real estate is sold in KRW 152,00,000 shall be re-written.

was held.

D) On March 18, 2015, tinA concluded a sales contract for the instant cartel on February 1, 2015 with respect to the instant cartel.

The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the grounds of the foregoing. The Defendant on May 31, 2015, as seen earlier.

The transfer income tax was reported and paid to the Moel of this case at KRW 44,500,000.

E) The Plaintiff and Dai Han on August 6, 2015 with respect to the instant exchanged real estate, the Plaintiff and Dai Han on August 6, 2015

In addition, the sales contract (No. 5) stating that the above exchanged real estate is sold for KRW 500 million is re-established.

On August 6, 2015, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract on August 6, 2015 with respect to the instant exchanged real estate.

The registration of ownership transfer has been completed on the ground of Section B. The tinA completed the registration of ownership transfer to the Defendant on October 31, 2015.

The transfer income tax was reported and paid with the transfer value of the exchanged real estate as KRW 500 million.

F) The reorganization is as follows:

2) Each sales contract and ownership transfer registration of the instant exchanged real estate between the Plaintiff and the competent Do governor

A) On August 6, 2015, the Plaintiff and the competent △△△△△ on the instant exchange real estate, the Plaintiff and the competent △△△△△△△△.

In addition, a sales contract (No. 6) stating that the exchangeable real estate is sold in KRW 152,00,000 shall be written.

A sales contract (A) stating that the exchange real estate is sold for KRW 500 million on August 17, 2015, and that it is sold for KRW 500 million.

No. 7 (Evidence 7) was re-established

B) On August 24, 2015, in relation to the instant exchange real estate, sale and purchase on August 17, 2015

The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the grounds of a contract. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer.

31. The transfer value of the exchanged real estate in this case to the Defendant is KRW 50 million, and the acquisition value is KRW 514,013,620.

the transfer income tax was reported.

C. Relevant legal principles

same company, even if not bound by the fact-finding in a criminal trial

The facts which have been recognized as the reason for the final criminal judgment with respect to the actual relation are important in the administrative judgment.

In the light of other evidence submitted in the administrative trial, the court shall adopt a factual judgment in the criminal trial.

barring special circumstances where it is deemed difficult to do so, a criminal judgment shall be rejected and opposed thereto.

No facts may be recognized (Supreme Court Decision 96Da9621 Decided May 28, 1996, Supreme Court Decision 96Da9621 Decided May 28, 199, Supreme Court Decision 199

26. See Supreme Court Decision 98Du10424, etc.)

D. Determination

1) Transfer value of the Maurel of this case

The facts of recognition and each evidence mentioned above are written in the evidence Nos. 5, 6, 9, and 11, and the right of witness

Comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances that may be known by the partial testimony and the purport of the entire pleading;

In light of the above, the Plaintiff’s payment of 2050,000,000 won for the instant cartel (=payment in cash and transfer of the Plaintiff)

Amount of KRW 1,850,00,000 for the portion of succession to loan obligations + the price of the instant exchanged real property

The sum of KRW 500,000 shall not exceed KRW 1,444,50,000,000,000 for the transfer value of the Maurel sold to the Defendant

Since the filing of a lawsuit is recognized, the first plaintiff's above assertion is not accepted on a different premise.

section 1.

① On February 6, 2017, the Plaintiff’s criminal facts stated in attached Form 3 from the Jinwon District Court’s Jinju branch

As such, around January 14, 2015, the Plaintiff transferred the instant telecom in KRW 2,050,000 to tinA.

In order to reduce capital gains tax, the sales amount of KRW 1,850,000 is false;

A sales contract shall be prepared, and the transfer income tax shall be reported on May 31, 2015 to the Seoul OO Tax Office around 31, 2015

The appraised value of TV contained in the subject matter of sale, as if it were sold separately, and so on;

After making a statement to the effect that it is KRW 105,50,000, the cost of equipment at KRW 1550,000 for false transfer value.

144,500,000 won which was deducted by the transfer value is under-reported and thus, 152,604,926 won of the transfer income tax.

The amount was evaded, as a result of the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, 2 years of the suspended sentence and the probation;

It was sentenced to the judgment ordering community service work for 120 hours (hereinafter referred to as the "relevant criminal judgment"), and it was hard to say that the above judgment became final and conclusive as it is (Evidence No. 11).

② tinA’s purchase price in the course of a tax authority’s investigation is 2.1 billion won for the Plaintiff and the instant mother.

50,000,000 won shall be deducted under the pretext of compensation for damage to tinA, but after agreement as a source;

As such, the total purchase price of the instant telecom is KRW 2050,000. The said purchase price is the Plaintiff.

10,000,000 won paid in cash, and 530,000 won paid in cash, and 10,000 won and the Plaintiff’s full tax

Total succession of 50,000,000 and 960,000,00

KRW 1,550,000 (= KRW 530,000,000 + + 10,000,000 + + 50,000,000 + 960,000,000)

The instant exchange real estate was transferred to KRW 500,000,000, and was paid in full. The instant telecom

At the Plaintiff’s request to reduce capital gains tax on the Mour trading of this case

A sales contract and the purchase price of real estate exchanged for the case, entered as KRW 1,50,000,000;

152,00,000 won, the sales contract was prepared separately, and the statement was made to the effect that the sales contract was prepared separately (A evidence No. 9);

(2) No. 2)

③ On January 14, 2015, the Plaintiff and Dai Han indicated the sales price of the instant Maurher on KRW 2.1 billion.

In preparing a sales contract, the phrase “the amount of the transfer tax (tax) shall not be paid,” and “the amount shall not be paid,” under mutual agreement at the bottom (Evidence 1). After entering the sales contract, the sales contract dated February 1, 2015, stating the amount of KRW 1,550,000,000, the sales contract of this case and the sales price of the exchange real estate of this case.

The sales contract dated March 17, 2015, stating B as KRW 152,00,000, is based on the above agreement.

It seems that it is a multilateral contract prepared to reduce capital gains tax.

④ The Plaintiff’s husband yellowB is a confirmation of the fact that the Plaintiff’s husband entered into a real estate sales contract on June 2, 2015.

(B) No. 3, the Plaintiff’s confirmation of the facts led by the TB in his preparatory document on May 28, 2018.

The plaintiff and tinA found that this case was drawn up, the value of the mother of this case 2.1 billion won, and this case

The value of an exchanged real estate shall be 525,00,000 won by agreement, and each sales contract dated January 14, 2015 shall be concluded.

The author prepared the contract and agreed to prepare a multilateral contract to reduce the transfer income tax at the time.

C. After February 1, 2015, the value of the instant Maurel is KRW 2 billion, and the value of the instant exchanged real estate.

450,000,000 won in order to remove capital gains tax, acquisition tax, and registration tax, as agreed to be modified.

The Plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 450,000,000 to the Plaintiff by selling the instant exchanged real estate.

C. Also, this paper introduces the sales contract between the Plaintiff and tinA for the instant cartels.

In the course of the investigation conducted by the authority of the Republic of Korea and the tax authority of the relevant Madern, KRW 2.1 billion

to reduce the transfer income tax after being known to it, the Plaintiff and Dai Han have entered into a multilateral contract with

was known to have been sexually written (Evidence No. 5, 6).

5. The transfer value of the instant exchanged real estate on October 31, 2015 shall be KRW 500 million.

Transfer income tax was reported and paid, and after selling the instant Moel to a third party, May 31, 2016.

The acquisition value of the instant telecom was KRW 2.1 billion and the transfer income tax was reported (No. 9).

â…………§ 525,00,000, the value of the exchanged real estate in the present case is assessed as KRW 525,000,000, and the purchase price of the instant telecom shall be determined as KRW 2.1 billion, but the value of the

of 152,00,000 won, with knowledge that the value does not reach the agreement, so that the agreement has been reached that the value shall not be modified.

“The sales price of the Moel shall be KRW 1,702,00,000.” However, the sales price of the Moel of this case is about KRW 400,000 according to the value of the exchange real property of this case, which is only a means of payment.

In general, it is common that the Plaintiff was able to accept without any objection even though the amount was so large; or

Since the examination rules are contrary to the above plaintiff's assertion has no credibility.

2) Transfer value of the instant exchanged real estate

Evidence Nos. 11, 12, and No. 7, 8, and 12, based on the facts found in the above facts and each evidence

Comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances known by each entry and the purport of the entire pleading:

On August 10, 2015, the Plaintiff acquired the instant exchange real estate from tinA by transfer from August 24, 2015

Since it is recognized that the Do governor transferred it to the Do governor in the form of KRW 500 million, the Plaintiff’s status on different premise is recognized.

We do not accept the argument

(1) As seen in paragraph (1) above, the Plaintiff’s purchase price for the instant her mother.

The sale amount of KRW 2,050,000 was sold, and the value of the instant exchanged real estate out of the sales amount was acquired.

50 million won. However, the Plaintiff acquired the exchange real estate of this case to the competent △△△△ in two weeks after the Plaintiff acquired it.

The sale of KRW 152,00,000 is against general common common rules and rule of experience.

② As seen earlier, the Plaintiff and the competent Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor and Do Governor shall sell and purchase the instant exchange real estate on August 17, 2015.

A sales contract stating the price of KRW 500 million was prepared, and the plaintiff on October 31, 2015, the above sales contract was prepared by the plaintiff.

5,013,620 won, transfer value, on the basis of a summary statement, shall be 5,14,01

B made a preliminary return of capital gains tax refund for the taxable year 2015 with 500 million won.

③ On August 24, 2015, the competent △△△△△, indicated the purchase price of the instant exchanged real estate as KRW 500 million.

The registration of transfer of ownership of the instant exchanged real estate by reason of the purchase and sale contract dated August 17, 2015

complete the proceedings.

(4) The exchange of this case conducted at the request of the head of the Si/Gu/Gu Forestry Cooperatives at the request of the competent Do Governor.

According to the appraisal of real estate (O) as a result of appraisal (Evidence No. 7), the value of the exchange real estate

318,647,600 won and similar real estate in the vicinity of the exchange real estate is also individual in the auction procedure.

It was investigated to have been sold at the price of 3 to 6 times the officially announced land price.

No. 152,00,000 won in exchange for the instant exchange real estate to the competent △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△, the Plaintiff testified that the Plaintiff sold the instant exchange real estate to the competent △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△, and that the Plaintiff sold the instant exchange real estate in excess of KRW 152,00,000 to the Plaintiff, and thus, the Plaintiff sold the instant exchange real estate

The portion of the testimony is not reliable (in the course of the investigation by the tax authority, the competence in the future shall be sold in 152,00,000 the exchange real estate of the case to the competent △△△△△, instead of selling it in 152,00,000.)

The plaintiff stated that "I would like to cover the construction cost at the time," and "I would like to receive KRW 200 million from the 201524, the same day," and "I would like to transfer the 48,000,000 won out of the money to the Seocho-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City."

The plaintiff asserts that "it would be paid only 152,00,000 won with the purchase price of movable property." However, according to the records of financial transactions (Evidence No. 8) attached to the written request for examination, the plaintiff, the plaintiff, the plaintiff, the plaintiff, the plaintiff, the plaintiff, on August 24, 2015, the 48,000,000 won from the △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△ on August 24, 2016, and the loan certificate (Evidence No. 8) stating that "the loan certificate (Evidence No. 8) was made and borrowed at the rate of 6% per annum

In light of the fact that this is seen as a arbitr, the above argument of the plaintiff is believed as it is.

It is difficult for the Plaintiff to make up for part of the purchase price of the instant exchanged real estate from the competent △△△ on August 24, 2015.

It seems that 200 million won was paid and used.

(7) In principle, the transfer value or acquisition value shall be the actual transaction value (income tax).

Articles 96 and 97 of the Act), where it is impossible to recognize or confirm the actual transaction price, the actual transaction price;

No books, sales contracts, receipts, and other documentary evidence necessary for confirmation, or any important documents;

Where any portion is incomplete, the details of the account book, sales contract, receipt, and other documentary evidence shall be the sales case.

Where it is obvious that it is false in light of the value, appraisal value, etc. appraised by an appraisal business entity;

The amount or acquisition value shall be the transaction example, appraisal value, conversion value or standard market value in succession.

section 97(2) of the Income Tax Act, section 114(7) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, section 163(12), section 176 of the same Act

Article 2-2(1) through (3) of the Act. As such, the defendant shall transfer the exchange real estate of this case claimed by the plaintiff.

Where the value of KRW 152,00,000 is not recognized, transaction example, appraisal value, etc. in order;

applicable thereto. The transfer value of the instant exchanged real estate within three months before the date of transfer shall be calculated.

In the instant exchange real estate transfer/acquisition agreement between the Plaintiff, which constitutes a sale case, and tinA

In light of the fact that the transfer value of the exchanged real estate is determined as KRW 500 million, ultimately, the transaction example is entered.

Even if used, it is reasonable to calculate the transfer value of the instant exchanged real estate as KRW 500 million.

E. Sub-decision

Therefore, the Plaintiff transferred the instant telecom to KRW 2,050,000,000, and the exchange real property of KRW 500,000.

A disposition to rectify the present increase under the premise that it was lawful.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is just and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

It is so decided as per Disposition.