Suwon District Court 2015Gudan31286, 2016

Appropriateness of Transfer Price

Inasmuch as the primary contract cannot be concluded to be a contract that reflects the actual contract, it is insufficient to recognize that there is evidence by the Defendant regarding the fact that the actual transaction value of the instant land is KRW 600 million.

Transfer Income Tax Act

Seoul High Court 2016Nu54956 (2017.06.07)

L**

○ Head of tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2015Gudan31286 Decided February 2, 2016

oly 2017.17

2017.06.07

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 149,778,460 against the Plaintiff on August 1, 2014 shall be revoked.

3. The supplementary participation costs are borne by the Intervenor, and the remainder is borne by the Defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

The reasons for this part are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (up to two pages 5 through 3 pages 2). Thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition that the Defendant regarded the transfer value as KRW 600 million, not KRW 600 million, even though the transfer value of the instant land was KRW 425 million. The Plaintiff reported the transfer income tax with the knowledge of the transfer value of the instant land as KRW 425 million. As such, the instant disposition was made after the lapse of the exclusion period for imposition of the transfer income tax for five years, even though the Plaintiff did not evade the transfer income tax by unlawful means.

(b) Fact of recognition;

① On April 17, 2003, the land of this case was registered for the following reasons: (a) on July 13, 2004, on the ground of sale on the 4th day of the same month; (b) on the ground of sale on the 10th day of the same month; (c) on the ground of property division on the 11th day of the same month; (d) on the part of the Intervenor, on September 15, 2009, each registration of ownership transfer was completed on the grounds of property division; and (e) on April 18, 2003, the registration of the establishment of a collateral security was completed on the part of the obligor, a media corporation, and Korea Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Bank”); and (e) on July 13, 2004, the registration of the alteration of the right to collateral security made to the Intervenor as the intervenor on

② On April 4, 2003, the Plaintiff purchased the instant land in KRW 375 million. On March 29, 2004, the Seoul detention center was able to sell the instant land in excess of KRW 400 million, and the Plaintiff’s sales authority was delegated.

③ Abb was introduced by Park ccck upon the request of the seller of the instant land by the real estate agent Kimd-d's office located in Taesung-Eup, Taesung-si, and Kimd's brokerage of the sales contract for the instant land between the Plaintiff and Leee (hereinafter "instant contract").

④ On June 10, 2004, the instant contract was concluded at the office of a licensed real estate agent located in Young-gu, Suwon-si, and a contract of KRW 600 million for the purchase price (hereinafter “the primary contract”) was written, and the agreement was written separately for the purchase price of KRW 425 million (hereinafter “the secondary contract”).

⑤ The primary contract includes both the seal of the Plaintiff and the agent of the Plaintiff and the buyer and the seal of the e-mail, five paragraphs are written as the agent of the seller, and the buyer's agent is written as a special agreement, while the buyer's agent is a blank, the buyer's agent is a blank, the buyer's agent is not written as a special agreement, and the applicant's agent is written as a certified judicial scrivener in the "applicant" column. The primary contract is written as Kimd's own pen, the secondary contract was written as a printed body, the date of the remainder payment is written as of July 15, 2004, and the secondary contract was written as of July 13, 2004, and all the dates of preparation of the primary and secondary contract are written as of June 10, 204.

6. AbB received 100 million won down payment from Songgg on the day of the contract as the Plaintiff’s agent, and then prepared and arranged a receipt in this e-e-mail, and the said receipt was written in the form of Kimd’s own pen;

In addition, each seal is affixed along with the name of b. agent.

7. On July 13, 2004, the date of the remainder payment under the second contract, the seller’s side at the point of several offices in the Bank of Korea.

Leeh, Leebb, Parkca, the buyer's side is present at Songgg, the intervenor, the successor, and the successorii, etc., jj

The seller succeeds to KRW 250,000,000,000 to the collateral obligation on the land of this case by the intervenor;

Any balance of 75 million won remaining after account transfer (Account Number: 309-08-****) in the name of thise.

After confirming that it was prohibited, the documents required for the registration of ownership transfer were delivered to the buyer.

8. Kimd, Kimj, Lee bb, and Park c, respectively, from Songg at the time of the payment of the balance.

It received KRW 10 million as brokerage commission or introduction fee.

(9) The confirmation of the fact of real estate transactions was prepared on July 13, 2004 in the name of Leee-e, and the printing company

with respect to the unique contents of the contract of this case except formal descriptions, writing in writing by Kimd's pen.

The sales price was stated as '425 billion won' and '7 July 13, 2004' and movement was stated as '425 billion won' and '4.0 million won'.

The name and seal of the past are affixed, and this is accompanied by the seal impression of this e.

(10) The participation of the intervenor in the case of the Korea Sti Bank on June 9, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the "Korea Sti Bank").

A check shall be withdrawn from the name (number: 372-********) to KRW 50 million, as a check, and on July 11, 2004.

The Intervenor's account on the 13th of the same month except for fees, etc. with loans of KRW 100 million from the Korean bank.

(Number: 589-28284-13-**) deposited KRW 98,580,580.

[Evidence] Facts without dispute, Gap 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, Eul 1, 4 through 8, 11, and Eul

(b) Evidence Nos. 9, 10, Eul No. 7, and Eul No. 1 among evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 through 7, part of the evidence No. 9, No. 1

(except for the parts rejected in the front and rear) entry of 0 number, including 10 number, and the first instance court

The results of each financial transaction information reply made by the court to the Korean Sti Bank and the Korean Bank, and the witness Kimd in the first instance trial;

The whole purport of each of the testimony of Park Cc, Ebb, Gii, and Eg, of the witness of the trial, the whole of the pleadings.

[Evidence Evidence] Part of Evidence Nos. 9, 10, Eul evidence No. 7, Eul evidence No. 1, and the witness Kim in the first instance trial

d. Each of the testimonys of d, Park Cc, Sc, Sb, Gii, and Songg

C. Determination

(1) Whether the actual transaction value of the instant land was 600 million won or more

(A) The legality and legality of the taxation disposition in the administrative litigation seeking revocation on the grounds of illegality of the taxation disposition

The tax base of capital gains tax because the tax authority bears the burden of proving the existence of the requirement fact.

In principle, the burden of proving the transfer value, which serves as the basis, is also imposed on the tax authorities.

According to Article 96 (1) of the Income Tax Act, the transfer value of assets at the time of transfer shall be transferred.

The actual transaction price between the transferee and the transferee is to be determined. The transfer of the land in this case

Evidence No. 3 (the first contract, No. 13) as evidence showing that the value is KRW 600 million.

-1, Eul evidence 5, Eul evidence 5, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 2, 3, 7, and 11, respectively, and the first instance court

A witness Kimdd, or a witness at the trial. However, the facts and the preceding facts recognized earlier are all the testimony.

In light of the following circumstances known in light of the overall purport of the evidence,

Inasmuch as the primary contract cannot be concluded to be a contract that reflects the actual contract, between the Plaintiff and the e.

The defendant's proof that the actual transaction value of the land of this case is KRW 60 million.

It is insufficient to recognize that there is this.

(1) The fact that the second contract has been prepared after the execution of the first contract does not conflict between the parties; or

The participants of the sales contract and the balance payment date are somewhat different between the persons who have made the statement, as follows:

Classification

The balance payment date of the contract;

The seller's side of the buyer's side of the seller's side

BB

Investigation Agency

(A10)

bb, cc.

Kimd and its position

Won, Leeh, Lee*

Songg, Kimj,

§ 21), E.

bb, Eh,

Park Cc, Kimdon

his staff;

Egg, Intervenor;

Jii, Kimj

the Court of Justice Kimdd, leff;

Songg, Kimj,

Y II, E

bb, Eh,

Park Cc, Kimd

Egg, Intervenor;

Jii, Kimj

Park cc

Law of the first instance court

bb, cc.

d Kimd

Eggs, Hagiiiiii) Isb, h,

Park Cc, Kimd

Egg, Intervenor;

Jii, Kimj

Investigation Agency

(A9)

bb, cc.

Kimd, Leeh

Egg, Hii,

j Kim

bb, Eh,

Park Cc, Kimd

d Kimd

Tax Investigation

(B7,11)

BB

Songg, Kimj,

f.2

Isb, Ish

Songg, Kimj,

f.2

Law of the first instance court

bb, cc.

Hh, Kimdd

Egg, Hag, Lii

Hh, Ebb,

Park cc

Jii, Songg

e For the purposes of this e, bb shall be present at the time of the conclusion of this e and immediately before the preparation of the second contract

The time of attendance is somewhat unclear, and the witness Kim in the first instance court is only a witness Kim

d. d. Hab, Park Jong-c, all of which are witnesses at the trial, shall be without any difficulties in entering into the contract.

There is no other material that e has participated in the process of concluding a contract, including the fact that e has made a statement consistent;

In light of the foregoing, the e may not be deemed to have participated in the preparation of the first and second contracts. The instant contracts

They did not attend and entered into a contract by their representatives.

② The first contract for the instant land is a contract which was first made in the sales contract for the instant land;

A secondary contract exists, and the fact of payment of the price and the date of payment are as follows:

Since it is more consistent with this, it is difficult to believe the primary contract as it is.

i) The buyer paid the down payment of KRW 100 million as a check, but received the receipt, out of the balance.

The payment by account transfer shall be 100 million won, excluding the amount of 75 million won which is objectively apparent from the objective fact of payment by account transfer.

Although 75 million won was paid as a check, the Intervenor does not submit a receipt.

the receipt to be received at the same time as all documents for ownership transfer registration are paid.

If there is no need for payment, but if there is no evidence, transfer of ownership, etc.

Even after the expiration of the period, there may be a dispute between the seller and the seller regarding the payment of the price.

c) The Plaintiff, the owner of the instant case, is in the custody of the correctional institution, and is indirectly subject to restrictions on the conduct.

The execution of a contract and the receipt of the down payment shall be made through an agent for the reasons that the contract is inevitable.

may have a possibility of future disputes due to the circumstances opened between the principal and his/her agent, etc.

Therefore, there is a need to receive evidence about payment of price. An intervenor for the purpose of tax return.

Since a secondary contract is prepared by lowering the purchase price to be actually lower than the actual one, a receipt equivalent to the difference shall be written.

Although it was alleged that there was no need to do so, the second contract causing 425 million won (A evidence 5, A No. 13)

written evidence-2, Eul evidence-2, and Eul evidence-4, the same shall apply to the above amount of transaction.

Taking into account the fact that a certificate of the transaction of movables (No. 7-1, 2) was written in the name of thise.

If there is more dispute, it is necessary to clarify the fact of payment because there is a possibility of dispute.

C. On June 10, 2004, the buyer paid the down payment of KRW 100 million as a check and received a receipt.

In the first instance court, the Kimdd' that brokered the sale and purchase of this case is not consistent with this and also in the first instance court.

The payment of down payment of KRW 100 million by cashier's checks is memory, but the balance has been paid in full.

any balance of KRW 175 million as a check, as well as any other means of payment.

whether or not payment has been made is not memory. In light of this, the buyer's side is 100 million won.

If the seller fails to provide a receipt of KRW 75 million, the seller shall not be paid the equivalent amount.

In addition, there seems to be no other circumstances.

(ii) objective data on the source of KRW 175 million that the intervenor paid as a check.

and the contents presented as such are not submitted to the Bank of Korea, the Bank of Korea, and the Bank of Korea.

Medical clinics operated by the Intervenor with a false statement of the results of the convergence transaction information gathering;

Only as a check received by entry, the receipt shall be made by the account books such as medical records and medical fees.

The intervenor does not state objective grounds. The intervenor is one hundred million won out of the loans from the Korean bank.

98,283,900 won plus existing balance, together with 75 million won on July 13, 2004,

13:56:45), 10 million won ( cashier's checks, 14:1:26), 17,648,050 won (alternative payments, 14:30 :40).

102,648,050 won can be found to have been withdrawn. The seller shall pay the above substitute payment of KRW 75 million.

A person whose account transfer was revealed to him/her and whose remaining amount has been paid as a sale price;

There is no charge. According to the testimony of a witness at the trial, the par value of the checks prepared by the intervenor shall be paid to him.

The intervenor is the right of KRW 10 million and the right of KRW 10 million, and this is the intervenor's right of KRW 10 million.

The check number is not specified. The 10 million won check of the medical clinic's revenue is not specified.

It is exceptional that the check was received, and as such, whether the check number, etc. is stated on the high-amount check.

It is also difficult to understand that the Intervenor did not appear easily. The Intervenor’s limitation to the Intervenor of the Korea C&T Bank on June 9, 2004

Although the shipment of KRW 50 million from the account to the check was made, this is the contract before the date of payment of the down payment.

Since there is a room for payment in gold, it is insufficient for the Intervenor to be the basis for the payment in any balance.

The 175 million won worth of the dental clinic received as the medical clinic income was kept as it is.

The payment of the down payment shall have been used one month prior to the payment of the remainder, and the payment of the down payment shall be

The withdrawal of 50 million won as required from the bank account from the bank account, and dental clinic revenues for a month;

in light of the fact that there is no evidence to presume that a check was received KRW 175 million, etc.

The argument that the payment was made in keeping the check equivalent to KRW 175 million is difficult to believe.

iii) A dispute between the parties as to the fact that the actual payment date of the balance is July 13, 2004.

The remainder date of the first contract is July 15, 2004, and the remainder date of the second contract is 204.

7. 13. In light of the fact that the secondary contract is consistent with the actual payment date, the secondary contract is a primary contract.

The content seems to have been modified later.

iv) According to the statements set forth in Gap evidence 9 and the testimony set forth in the first instance court witness Park ccc, Lee bb, Kim

d and Kimj received KRW 10 million from Songg at the balance settlement site on July 13, 2004.

(1) and, in addition to the brokerage commission, a person who has participated in the conclusion of a contract in the amount of KRW 40,000,000.

In light of the fact that there is no reason to pay to the defendant, this* for any reason by Songg and intervenor*

to the extent that the purchase price of the land of this case is KRW 60 million, and in such a manner,

evidence shall be presented, and the terms and conditions of the contract in which the actual purchase price is 425 million won shall be kept confidential.

There is room to view that it was necessary to do so.

v) In the point of section 4 above, the broker Kimd's payment is not in conformity with the actual payment.

A consistent confirmation or statement is made in accordance with the assertion of several parties, and other matters are clear.

If we look at the fact that the amount of the brokerage commission is sought while disclosing it, the primary contract is made.

(2) If the purchase price is 60 million won or more, the sale price shall be determined in detail pursuant to the needs of the reg to believe that

There is room for preparation, so that the primary contract is not a special agreement or the seller's side.

just because the agent is stated, the contract is deemed to have been actually entered into as the primary contract.

It is difficult to do so.

6) The Plaintiff seeks to create interest on factory operation funds at 1 year after purchasing the instant land.

from March 29, 2004 to receive only a certain amount of money at the price purchased for an urgent necessity.

On the other hand, while the buyer came to buy and sell the Do after a considerable time has passed by promoting the Do, the buyer is on the part of the buyer.

In light of the fact that there was no inevitable circumstance to purchase the land of this case, there was no data to do so.

In the contract of this case, the buyer's right to take the initiative in the contract of this case is required to be the buyer.

to the extent possible, and as such, the primary contract is written.

this paper supports gender-based circumstances.

vii) The intervenor is not consistent with the statements of bb, so thisb is the primary contract and the secondary contract between b and b.

I argue that the difference between 175 million won and 100 million won has been embezzled. Lee bb initially 1,2

date of conclusion of the contract, the details of the destruction of the primary contract, and the details of receipt of KRW 10 million from Songg; and

The fact that a statement was not consistent with the specific process is recognized, however, thisb.

A representative of the contract of this case received a disposition imposing a large amount of tax due to the sale of the land of this case.

The amount of the purchase price from the plaintiff shall be asked to be resolved together with the name of the dismissal.

The head of the chapter has been placed on the basis of a long-term period of time, and there is a confusion of memory in the restoration of accurate facts.

As seen earlier, Isb also received KRW 10,000,000 from Songg, and b.

If embezzlement is made, it is inconsistent with this, and on the remainder payment date, the Plaintiff’s wife’s hh also attendance at the meeting.

was not disputed between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor, and interest in the amount of the purchase price ash is interest in the amount of the purchase price.

The amount of the purchase price can be confirmed at any time to the participants, such as the broker, etc., because the amount of the purchase price was exceeded.

at the risk of such risk as this may not be found in the circumstances in which the facts may be identified;

If it is difficult to see that it was intended, and even if b has attempted to embezzlement, b.

all participants must have taken measures to maintain confidentiality, but such circumstances shall

In light of the fact that the statements made by Isb are not somewhat consistent, etc., the circumstance that the statements made by Is not consistent

It is not enough that the primary contract becomes the basis for the actual contract.

3. Eul Certificate 7 (Certificate of Broker) is submitted to the tax official on August 23, 2011 by Kimd-d'.

The confirmation of the fact that the purchase price is KRW 60 million, and Songg is KRW 25,000,000, out of the balance to Leeh.

only KRW 10,000,000,000,000 won check (one hundred million,000,000,0000,000 won, Kim*

(100 million won), however, includes the balance of 250 million won.

All payments made by a check is clearly contrary to the results of the financial transaction information meeting, and the balance.

Since it was found that the account transfer of KRW 75 million does not comply with the details of account transfer, it is believed as it is.

subsection (b) of this section.

④ No. 11 (Written Statement) is a written statement drawn up by Kimdd on August 25, 2015. The content is that.

Amount of the purchase price of the land in this case is KRW 60 million, and the remainder payment is specific amount.

the entry of No. 7 shall be the same as the entry of No. 7. The content of No. 7, such as the document No. 7

Since it is contrary to the fact, it is also difficult to believe as it is.

(5) Transfer income tax prescribed in subparagraph 2 shall be assessed against a public official in charge of the investigation of distribution tax books.

8. Lee Jong-e, prepared in relation to the investigation of capital gains tax by the ordinary intervenor.

The basis for the investigation is the intervenor's side, however, stated that the basis for the investigation is KRW 600 million.

Since it is based on data submitted, it is not enough to believe the content as it is.

(6) A public official in charge of the investigation of distribution taxation of transfer income tax as well as a written review of assessment data of transfer income tax.

Seed on June 17, 2013, the transaction of the land of this case between the plaintiff and Leee with respect to the transaction amount of the land of this case:

The results of the review that the price is KRW 600,000,000 have been stated, but the participant's side has been stated as such.

As seen earlier, the primary contract refers to the materials of payment and the primary contract, etc.

It is insufficient to recognize the content as the content, and the fact of payment is also based on objective data, so it is large.

such belief is insufficient.

7. The land of this case as stated in Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 7, for which Kimd's testimony at the first instance court was made.

the sale price of the Company is KRW 600,000,000 or, as seen earlier, it is difficult to believe such a certificate.

J. Kimd's payment of the purchase price, contrary to the actual assertion of the purchaser, is confirmed as in the same manner as the purchaser claims.

(2) the agency is seeking to make a statement and to pay the money received as the intermediary fee; or

Without involvement of the person, there is no evidence that the agreement of the parties alone requires the preparation of a secondary contract.

In light of the fact that Kimd's statement that the preparation of the second contract has been vague, Kim**

the statement of the first instance court cannot be trusted as it is.

8. In the first instance, state that the sales amount of the instant case is KRW 60 million, and KRW 175 million out of the balance.

Although it was stated that the payment of the balance was made as a check, it goes against objective data and sales contract.

(1) The place of conclusion is the same as the place of conclusion, and the fact that the payment was made at a coffee shop, not by the bank.

Since the testimony is contrary to other witnesses, it is difficult to believe it as it is.

9. The Defendant and the Intervenor on the premise that the Plaintiff’s purchase price is KRW 600 million, Leeb, Kimd, and Park*

The reason is that the purchase price is KRW 600,000,000, since the Kimj and Songg filed a complaint.

According to the statement of Russusna No. 6, the Plaintiff caused 425 million won of the purchase price of this case.

b. On the assumption that b. is subject to deception from Kimd or Songg, the actual sale of b.

A sales contract of KRW 600,000,000 for the purchase price of KRW 425,000,000 for the purchase price of KRW 1

The transfer office shall be exempt from the transfer income tax on the amount of KRW 75 million and at the same time the transfer office equivalent to the amount to the Plaintiff.

to be punished for breach of trust on the ground that they have been charged with the acquisition tax, and in respect of the remaining four persons, they shall

b The reason that the person deceptions b to defraud 175 million won in difference between the primary contract and the secondary contract.

It can be recognized that there is a difference between punishment and punishment for fraud. The Plaintiff also holds the sales price of this case.

As such, a complaint was filed on the premise that the purchase price is KRW 425 million, and thus, the plaintiff was 60 million.

the Board of Governors shall not be deemed to have recognized the Board of Governors.

(B) The proof is insufficient as to the fact that the actual transaction value of the instant land is KRW 600 million.

The instant disposition that considers the transfer value as KRW 600 million is unlawful.

(2) Whether the exclusion period has expired

(A) Relevant regulations and legal principles

(1) Basic national taxes under the former Framework Act on National Taxes (Amended by Act No. 12848, Dec. 23, 2014; hereinafter referred to as “basic national taxes”).

Article 26-2(1) of the Act provides that the exclusion period for the imposition of national taxes shall be five years, but the taxpayer may commit fraud.

(b) If a national tax is evaded, refunded, or deducted by other unlawful means, the national tax shall be imposed.

The legislative intent of the above provision is 10 years from the date of entry into force. The legislative intent of the above provision is to prompt tax law relations.

In principle, the exclusion period of the right to impose national taxes shall be five years, but the section on national taxes shall be five years.

Illegal acts such as making it difficult to find the facts requiring taxation or forging false facts;

in the case of a tax authority's failure to discover that the tax authority is a omission report, thereby expecting the exercise of the imposition authority.

Therefore, it is difficult to extend the exclusion period of national tax to 10 years.

"Fraud or any other unlawful act" referred to in subparagraph 1 means the impossibility or significant difficulty of imposing and collecting taxes.

means a deceptive scheme or other aggressive act, and without accompanying any other act.

not simply filing a report under the tax law or filing a false report is applicable thereto.

section 3(1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, Article 8 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes

Article 1 (1) and (2), etc., local tax shall be evaded or local tax shall be local tax by fraud or other improper means.

In the case of refund or deduction, imprisonment for not more than two years or the amount of tax evaded, etc. according to the excess of the amount of tax evaded, etc.

from the fine equivalent to not more than twice the amount of the fine, two times the amount of imprisonment with prison labor for life or for not less than five years, the amount of tax evaded, etc.

'Fraud or other unlawful act', which provides for the imposition of a fine of not less than five times but not more than

Inasmuch as criminal punishment is the constituent elements of criminal punishment, any act constitutes fraud or other fraudulent act under tax law.

(1) In the case of determining whether a person constitutes a "act" or not, it shall be deemed to constitute a "act" or

It should be interpreted significantly (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Du29168, May 16, 2014).

(2) "Unlawful acts" under Article 26-2 (1) 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes shall apply to the taxpayer himself/herself.

In addition to illegal acts, the person liable to pay taxes by entrusting him/her with the management of related affairs.

Such unlawful acts as an agent or performance assistant of a taxpayer who obtains a benefit of the reverse extension.

Unless other special circumstances exist (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du1385, Sept. 10, 2015)

§ 6).

(3) Article 12-3 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes shall report the tax base and amount.

In cases of a deadline for filing a return or deadline for filing a return on the tax base and amount of the national tax;

Article 110 (1) of the Income Tax Act is the date on which national taxes may be imposed.

A resident shall have the tax base of capital gains from May 1 to May 31 of the year following the relevant taxable period.

As prescribed by Ordinance, it shall be reported to the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment.

(B) Whether it constitutes fraud or other unlawful act

In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances revealed by the facts acknowledged as above are examined.

In this regard, the content of the contract for the sale of the land of this case between the plaintiff and the Leee and the civil validity

Does bb make it impossible or considerably difficult to impose and collect taxes, whatever;

(b) it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff’s affirmative action was committed by the Plaintiff or Leeb.

It can be seen that the act constitutes fraud or other wrongful act under section 26-2(1)1 of this title.

shall not be effective.

1. 425 million won for the actual purchase price of the instant land between the buyer and the buyer.

The purchase price of KRW 600,000 is paid at the request of the buyer who had the leading authority to the sales contract at the time of the agreement.

The primary contract was made only by preparing the primary contract.

(2) Abb receives KRW 10 million from Songg, but the purchase price specified in the first and second contracts was determined as follows:

as well as whether the difference was not involved in the processing of KRW 175 million, and whether the money was actually prepared; and

The whereabouts were unknown.

3. 400 million won, with knowledge that the actual contract was entered into in accordance with the second contract.

Only received KRW 25 million and reported as it is, but intentionally reduced the purchase price;

It did not actively conceal the contract, such as writing the contract or pretending it differently from the fact.

(C) Sub-determination

subsection (b) of this case unless this subsection is approved of fraud or other

The exclusion period for capital gains tax on land is five years from June 1, 2005, the following day after the filing deadline.

Since the disposition in this case was made on August 1, 2014, after the expiration of the period, the exclusion period for imposition was set.

It shall be null and void as a transitional disposition.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and the judgment of the court of first instance has different conclusions.

Since it is unfair, the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked and the disposition of this case shall be revoked.