Seoul Administrative Court 2016Gudan56086 ( October 17, 2016)

It seems that this case's real estate was traded by double contract.

It is difficult to believe that the Plaintiff’s assertion about the reason for the sale and purchase of the instant real estate shares is difficult, and it is reasonable to view the instant real estate as the fact of transaction

2016Nu391 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

KimA

OO Head of the tax office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2015Gudan56086 decided December 17, 2016

August 25, 2016

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The transfer income tax attributed to the Plaintiff on August 7, 2014 that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on August 7, 2014

The imposition of ○○○ Won shall be revoked.

1. Partial citement of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is "1. Reasons for the disposition" and "2. Whether the disposition is legitimate, A. The plaintiff's assertion;

(b) Each corresponding part of the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance until "the facts of recognition" are applicable (from second to second of the judgment of the court of first instance);

Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, because it is the same as the entry.

this subsection shall be quoted by the court.

2. Parts that vary from the judgment of the first instance court;

C. Determination

(1) With respect to the circumstances leading up to the sale and purchase of the shares in the issues of the instant real estate, the Plaintiff and rightB raised their opinions to trade the shares in this case as KRW 00 billion, and the Plaintiff prepared the instant first contract stating the purchase price as KRW 000 million and delivered the documents before the seller’s seal, but the rightB refused to enter into a contract with the judgment on partition of co-owned property and to enter into a contract with another auction procedure, and again, concluded a verbal sales contract on May 27, 2008 with the reduction of the purchase price to KRW 000,000,000,0000, and then prepared the instant second contract on July 1, 2008 after receiving the down payment.

(2) Considering the facts acknowledged earlier and the following circumstances revealed by the aforementioned evidence, it is difficult to believe that the Plaintiff’s assertion on the process of selling and selling the shares in this case is difficult, and the actual transfer value of the shares in this case does not amount to KRW 00 million of the Plaintiff’s assertion.

D. It is reasonable to view the KRW 000,000,000 as stated in the instant contract No. 1.

① The process of the transaction of the instant shares was conducted as indicated in the instant contract No. 1. In other words, the process of the transaction is consistent with the content of the instant contract, even before the preparation of the sales contract, which is the payment of the down payment KRW 00 billion and the intermediate payment KRW 00 billion on May 27, 2008, the cancellation of the right to collateral security established in the instant shares, and the special agreement, with the purchase price of KRW 000 million, which is the subject matter of the instant contract.

② A person who has actively shown in the transaction of the key shares in this case is the purchaser’s rightB. In other words, in order to exercise the full right to the real estate in this case as a rightB holding 50/55 shares among the real estate in this case, it is necessary to hold the key shares in this case, and due to such circumstance, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff have decided to purchase the key shares in this case at a price higher than the market price (in particular, it is more true in that the reported transfer amount, which appears to be the seller’s requirements due to a special agreement, is to be KRW 00 million). Nevertheless, the rightB would acquire the key shares in this case by another way only when the Plaintiff received the transfer of the first contract in this case, which was written only by the Plaintiff and the documents related thereto, from the Plaintiff.

C. However, it is difficult to believe that the Plaintiff, who had been residing in Canada at the time, refused to conclude a contract with the competentB and proposed to conclude a contract with the amount of KRW 00 million per day after hearing the intention of refusing to conclude a contract with the competentB and making a contract with the lower amount of KRW 00 million per day.

③ If the Plaintiff and the rightB agreed to pay the purchase price as KRW 00 million as stated in the instant contract No. 2, even if the Plaintiff did not recover the Plaintiff’s seal impression, the Plaintiff’s certificate of personal seal impression, the Korean national residing abroad registry, and the powerB continued to keep the purchase price as stated in the instant contract No. 2, and the Plaintiff did not explain that the Plaintiff kept the sales price as KRW 000,000,000 and the Plaintiff’s seal impression affixed on the seller’s seal impression, and that the rightB continued to keep the purchase price (which was kept by the rightB).

④ The instant secondary contract, which caused the purchase price of KRW 00 billion, was drafted as of July 1, 2008, when the sum of the down payment and the intermediate payment was paid in KRW 00 billion. The rightB, the buyer, is the buyer.

As such, even though the purchase price was lowered from KRW 000,000,000 to KRW 000,000, it is difficult to readily understand that the payment was made by oral agreement only without a written agreement that is exempted from the said payment.

⑤ According to the Plaintiff’s letter of confirmation, the purchaser’s rightB recognized that the purchase price of the shares in this case is KRW 00 million, and that there is no reason for the purchaser to lower the purchase price than the actual purchase price. In light of the above written confirmation, the purchaser asserts that the purchase price of the shares in this case is KRW 00 million. However, as seen earlier, the rightB had relevant documents with respect to the first contract of this case where the Plaintiff’s seal imprint affixed the Plaintiff’s seal imprint, and this is later at the time when the principal’s transfer income tax is at issue, the purchase price of the shares in this case is KRW 00 million.

Considering that the order can be ordered, the above judgment should be different on the basis of the above written confirmation.

is not the case.

3. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed for lack of grounds.