Suwon District Court 2009Guhap176 ( December 22, 2009)

Early High Court Decision 2008J3235 ( December 18, 2008)

Any act of filing a transfer income tax with a false sales contract shall be deemed to constitute fraud or other unlawful means.

Since it was exempted from the obligation to pay capital gains tax, which is a national tax, by submitting a false sales contract, and it was evaded, the exclusion period for imposition of ten years shall apply.

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

○ ○

Head of Namyang District Tax Office

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. Costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. The imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 73,242,040 on July 1, 2008 that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff and the imposition of KRW 2,197,260 on the surcharge of August 10, 2008 and the collection of KRW 2,197,260 on the surcharge of KRW 73,240 on August 10, 2008 are revoked (According to the purport of appeal stated in the written complaint and in the written petition of appeal, the instant lawsuit is unlawful, and thus, the instant claim of this case

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is the same as that of the first instance court's judgment, in addition to addition or dismissal below.

○ ○○ 31-155, ○○ 31-155, ○○ 301-155, ○○ 301-155, and add the following facts to the bottom 6 to the second 5 line of the first instance judgment:

E. The Defendant: (a) on August 10, 2008, on which the Plaintiff did not pay the said transfer income tax by July 31, 2008, the payment deadline; (b) on August 10, 2008, the Defendant urged the Plaintiff to pay the said transfer income tax and its additional dues 2,197,260 won.

○ From the 3rd bottom of the judgment of the first instance court, “The stamp image of the KimA affixed on the confirmation and explanatory note is consistent with that of the KimA in the sales contract submitted by the Kim A, while the stamp image of the plaintiff and KimA affixed on the confirmation and explanatory note, is consistent with that of the plaintiff and KimA submitted by the Kim A.”

2. Conclusion

Inasmuch as the instant disposition is lawful, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case, which sought the revocation of the instant disposition and the said collection disposition, is unlawful or based on the premise that the said disposition is unlawful, should be dismissed. The judgment of the court of first instance is just and reasonable, and the Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed on the grounds that there are no grounds for appeal by the Plaintiff.