Cho Jae-2016-China-1537 ( October 27, 2016)

The value of the transferor's report shall be appropriate in the criminal judgment of forging private documents of the purchaser of land.

For the purpose of reducing transfer margin, the Plaintiff’s transfer value is reasonable, since the Plaintiff was indicted by forging a contract on the rights and duties in a blind real estate sales contract, which was obtained in advance from the Plaintiffs, and was sentenced to three years of imprisonment by confession at the last day.

2017Guhap1928 Revocation of Disposition, etc. of Imposition of Capital Gains Tax

AA

November 21, 2017

December 26, 2017

1. The imposition of capital gains tax of 289,208,360 won on March 18, 2016 by Defendant AB director of the tax office against Plaintiff AA on March 18, 2016 shall be revoked.

2. The imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 311,181,580 on March 9, 2016 by Defendant AC Director against Plaintiff BB on March 9, 2016 is revoked.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 1, 2003, the Plaintiff AA is in the title of AAGu AA Dong 39-32 due to trade on November 1, 2003

I acquired 660/4 of 4,364 of 4,364 square meters (hereinafter referred to as "land before division"), and Plaintiff BB acquired 3,704 of 4,364 of the land before division due to trade on November 28, 2003.

(b) Land before subdivision: AA Dong due to registration conversion, partition, and land category change on October 28, 2005.

69-28 Large 330 square meters and AAAdong 69-29 Forest land of 4,034 square meters, and AAdong 69-29 land became 3,704 square meters of AAdong 69-29 forest land and 330 square meters of AAdong 69-30 forest land (hereinafter referred to as “divided land”) on December 9, 2005.

C. On November 15, 2005, Plaintiff AA newly built a building on the land 69-28 and completed registration of ownership preservation on November 15, 2005, and thereafter land 69-28 and 69-30 were owned solely by Plaintiff AA, and land 69-29 were owned by Plaintiff BB.

(d)

1) Plaintiff AA had CCC and DD on October 25, 2005 and on the land and on the ground buildings on October 25, 2005;

On December 22, 2005, the transfer income tax was reported at KRW 420,00,000 after the registration of transfer of ownership was completed on January 9, 2006.

2) On August 23, 2005, Plaintiff BB sold land 69-29 on August 23, 2005 to CCC and DD (hereinafter “2 real estate of this case”; and Plaintiff BB completed the registration of ownership transfer on January 9, 2006, and reported the transfer income tax with the transfer value of KRW 480,00,000,000.

E. CCC and DD sold the instant key real estate to EE on March 10, 2015, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership on April 1, 2015, and reported the transfer income tax with the transfer value of KRW 1,650,00,000. However, in the course of the tax investigation conducted by the head of the Defendant AC Tax Office on CCC and DD, the transfer value of Plaintiff AA’s instant real estate was KRW 730,291,000, and Plaintiff BB’s transfer value of the instant real estate was KRW 919,709,000, on March 18, 2016, the head of the Defendant AB Tax Office adjusted the transfer income tax amount of KRW 289,208,360 for Plaintiff AA on March 18, 2016 to Plaintiff AA for the disposition of KRW 301,208,000 for B0,000 for 208.

F. On April 7, 2016, the Plaintiffs dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on April 7, 2016, and on October 27, 2016, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision that “The actual transfer value of the instant real estate shall re-examine the actual transfer value and correct its tax base and tax amount.”

G. On December 20, 2016, the head of the tax office notified the Plaintiffs of the results of the tax investigation that “the initial disposition shall be determined to be maintained, and the reexamination shall be terminated,” and the Plaintiffs filed a request again with the Tax Tribunal on March 31, 2017, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the request on June 13, 2017.

Facts without any dispute arising in recognition, described in Gap evidence 1, 3 through 6, 13, Eul evidence 2, 3, 4, 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The defendant's transfer value based on the sales contract (No. 5) and receipt (No. 6)

In addition, the disposition of this case was taken by deeming that it was not KRW 900,000,000, not KRW 1,650,000,000. The above sales contract and receipts were made by D to evade the transfer income tax, so the disposition of this case should be revoked as unlawful.

B. Determination

No. 10, 11

In light of the following circumstances, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize the transfer value of the plaintiffs' CCC and DD as KRW 1,650,00,000, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the disposition of this case is unlawful and the plaintiffs' above assertion is with merit.

① There is no objective evidence that the CCC and DD paid the Plaintiffs KRW 1,650,00,000 in the purchase price.

② At the time of the sales contract, MM was present at the time of the purchase and sale contract and submitted a confirmation letter stating that the purchase price is KRW 1,150,000,000,000, the total amount of KRW 1,150,000,000 of the purchase price and KRW 900,000 of the purchase price shall be the amount calculated by adding the purchase price to KRW 250,00,000 of the purchase price (right to be constructed by obtaining a building permit in other areas as the removal was made due to the construction of a building on the ground of a building on the ground of a building on the ground owned by the Plaintiff AA) of the Plaintiff AA.

③ DD, around June 25, 2015, entered the sale price in blank, which was obtained in advance from the plaintiffs for the purpose of reducing transfer margin, into a real estate sales contract, "one copy of the contract on the rights and obligations of the plaintiffs and MM in the names of MM" was forged, and on February 2016, 2016, "the amount stated in the receipts of January 9, 2016 (260,000,000)" was altered into "the price of KRW 1,260,000,000 (260,000,000)" for the purpose of submitting it as evidence for civil litigation, and subsequently, it was prosecuted that "the Government's District Court was 2017,000,0000,000 won for the purpose of reducing transfer margin," which was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the first time on the basis of the National Research Institute's final judgment and the court's final judgment on the date of confession 3015.

The above case is currently pending in the appellate court due to the appeal of the DD (Korean District Court 2017No00).

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is justified.