Seoul Central District Court-2018-Sate-1543425 ( October 25, 2018)

In order for taxation to become void as a matter of course, there must be a significant and apparent reason for the taxation.

In order for taxation to be null and void as a matter of course, the fact that there is an illegality in the disposition is insufficient, and the defect is an important violation of laws and regulations, and it must be objectively apparent.

2018Na72736 Unlawful gains

OO

Korea

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2018 Ghana1543425 Decided October 25, 2018

May 23, 2019

June 13, 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 defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 15% interest per annum from the day after service of a copy of the complaint to the day after complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. OO.O.O., the Plaintiff, at the time of the registration of ownership transfer, transferred OOO-type OO land (hereinafter “first real estate of this case”) to the Korea Rural Community Corporation and completed the registration of ownership transfer thereof. The Plaintiff filed a preliminary return on the transfer income tax for the amount of OO-O's tax payable for the said transfer on OO-O.O., and paid the amount thereof.

B. A.O.O.O. 2014. The Plaintiff transferred the same RiO-O,O, andO land (hereinafter “second real estate of this case”) to A.A., and completed the registration of ownership transfer. The Plaintiff: (a) made a preliminary return of the transfer income tax amount payable on the OOO.O. 2014; and (b) paid the amount thereof.O.O. 2014.

C. After that, BB, CCC, and DD had been registered as the owner of each of the instant real estate before the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff, the Korea Rural Community Corporation, and AA for the cancellation of ownership transfer registration under OOOOO by OOO by 20 OO branch of the OO branch of the Korea Rural Community Corporation, and the said court rendered a judgment ordering the cancellation of each ownership transfer registration completed in the future of the Plaintiff on the grounds that each of the instant real estate was nonexistent or invalid due to the absence or invalidity of the cause of the act. Accordingly, the judgment became final and conclusive on the OOO on the grounds that each of the instant real estate was completed in the future by the Plaintiff, the Korea Rural Community Corporation, the Korea Rural Community Corporation, and the AA branch of the Korea Rural Community Corporation were the respective appeals and appeals, but the dismissal and dismissal of appeal became final and conclusive on the OOO of 2017.

D. The plaintiff and the Korea Rural Community Corporation, which had been completed on the first real estate of this case according to the above final judgment

AAA entered into an agreement with BB, CCC, and DD to re-purchase the instant 2 real estate.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 6 (including Ga number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul Nos. 1 and 2

Each entry of evidence, the purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

Since the judgment that the registration of transfer of ownership completed in the future of the Plaintiff, AAA, and the Korea Rural Community Corporation with respect to each of the instant real estate became null and void, the disposition regarding the Plaintiff’s report and the total transfer income tax paid to OO is null and void because the defect is so serious. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to return the above amount to the Plaintiff, since it

B. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

As for taxes in the form of tax return such as capital gains tax, in principle, a taxpayer’s duty to pay taxes is specifically determined by his/her own determination of tax base and amount by filing a return, and such payment is the performance of specific duty to pay taxes confirmed by the return, and the State or a local government holds the tax amount paid based on the confirmed tax claim as such. Thus, the act of a taxpayer’s filing of a return does not constitute unjust enrichment unless the act of a taxpayer’s filing of a return is invalidated inevitably due to a grave and apparent defect. Here, as to whether the act of a taxpayer’s filing of a return falls under the invalidity automatically due to a significant and apparent defect, the purpose, meaning, function, and legal remedy, etc. of the relevant laws and regulations that serve as the basis for the filing of the return, and at the same time, the specific circumstances that may arise from the filing of the return shall be determined reasonably by individually and reasonably (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Da4346, May 12, 2005;

In order for a taxation disposition to be null and void as a matter of course, the mere fact that there is an illegality in the disposition is insufficient, and its defect must be objectively and objectively obvious. The defect of the taxation disposition is significant and obvious. However, in a case where there are objective circumstances that make it possible to mislead a person who does not have any legal relation or factual relations subject to taxation to be subject to taxation as to any legal relation or factual relations which are not subject to taxation, if it is possible to accurately investigate the factual relations, whether it is subject to taxation or not, can only be identified as clear even if the defect is serious, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the illegal taxation disposition that misleads the fact of taxation is null and void as a matter of course (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da24986, Jul. 10, 200).

2) In the instant case:

As seen earlier, insofar as the transfer registration of ownership was completed in the Plaintiff’s future due to the completion of the transfer registration of ownership due to the purchase and sale in the Korea Rural Community Corporation and the AA, it cannot be deemed that there was a serious and apparent defect in the Plaintiff’s voluntary report, voluntary report, and payment of capital gains tax, insofar as there was an appearance the same as that of the Plaintiff’s transfer of ownership was made. Moreover, since there was a voluntary report and payment in conformity with such appearance, at least the Plaintiff’s voluntary report and payment act consistent with such appearance, at least there was objective reason to believe that the transfer income tax is subject to taxation of capital gains tax, and even if the transfer registration was cancelled later by stating that it was invalid, such fact can be clearly identified after the fact-finding was accurately examined, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there was a serious and apparent defect in the taxation of capital gains tax of this case, unless there were any special circumstances such as the tax authority imposed capital gains tax with the knowledge of such circumstances. Ultimately, the receipt of

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just and it is so dismissed as the plaintiff's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.