Cho-2015-Mining-419 (2015.05)

The person liable for duty payment must prove that the payment was made while banking operations.

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff did not present any objective data related to banking operations, such as construction contracts, estimates, purchase tax invoices, etc., except for the deposit sheet, is contrary to the general rule of experience of transaction, and that the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff paid a large amount of money in cash is against the general rule of experience of transaction. However, the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be accepted.

Article 94 of the Income Tax Act

Article 97 of the Income Tax Act

Jeonju District Court 2015Gudan1144 Revocation of Disposition of Dismissal of Correction

Each land was owned by HemD, the father of the plaintiff, and January 8, 2004.

In the future, the registration of transfer of ownership was completed on the seventh day of the same month.

B. On March 4, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) KRW 365.6 million on each of the instant land to △△ Communications Ltd.

On April 30, 2014, the Plaintiff sold and completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 30, 2014. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff on May 2014.

8. The Defendant reported and paid the transfer income tax with the transfer value as the above amount, acquisition value as KRW 103,681,600.

C. On September 3, 2014, the Plaintiff did not pay KRW 46.5 million to the Defendant at the expense of raising each of the instant land.

As such, the defendant filed a claim for correction to the effect that it would be recognized as necessary expenses, but the defendant

In addition to the deposit slips presented on November 4, 2014, transactions whose details of payment, etc. are not confirmed.

The reason that it is difficult to recognize necessary expenses, such as being unable to verify the fact of transactions from the other party.

This was dismissed (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case").

D. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal on November 24, 2014, but on March 5, 2015.

Each of them was done.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7

Each entry, including section, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff occupied each of the lands of this case since around 1995 and cultivated it, the plaintiff was under cultivation.

Since each land is low compared to neighboring land, about four years from 2000 to 2004.

In six times, banking operations have been performed by the representative of the K K K K General Airport and the head of the Si/Gun/Gu, and the total amount shall be the price.

The expenditure of KRW 46,500,000,000,00 for this reason, sold to the increased value of each land of this case

The defendant's disposition of this case, which was not recognized as necessary expenses, is unlawful.

must be revoked.

B. Determination

The burden of proof for the tax base that is the basis of taxation in a revocation suit of capital gains tax

The tax base shall be in the Customs Office and shall be the revenue, as the necessary expenses are deducted from the revenue.

The burden of proof of necessary expenses also belongs to the tax authority in principle, but necessary expenses shall be liable to pay tax.

In addition, most of the facts giving rise to necessary expenses are more favorable to the person, and most of the tax liability.

If it is difficult for the tax authority to prove it because it is located in the territory under its own control.

Therefore, considering the difficulty of proof or equity between the parties, the taxpayer is liable for tax payment.

that if it is reasonable to have the taxpayer prove the need of such proof,

The concept of fairness is consistent (Supreme Court Decision 2002Du1588 Decided September 23, 2004).

(see, e.g., in the instant case, the Plaintiff paid the price while banking.

Circumstances should be proved by the plaintiff.

A No. 4 (each deposit sheet) and No. 8 (the head of a Si/Gun/Gu) shall be admitted as evidence corresponding thereto.

The witness bears the witness’s testimony at the time of the commencement of the auction; however, the plaintiff is at the time of the commencement of the auction.

The price shall be KRW 9.5 million on May 30, 200, KRW 6 million on October 30, 2001, KRW 3.5 million on September 30, 2002, and KRW 3.5 million on September 30, 2002

Won, KRW 5 million on September 30, 2003, KRW 6 million on December 30, 2003, KRW 6 million on March 30, 2003, and KRW 1,656 million on March 30, 204

All of the payments in cash, and Gap evidence 4 concerning the payment received by the branch of the land in question.

1. That he/she prepared and delivered a six bill from 1 to 6, but the content column of each deposit sheet is in the column.

'H-transport soil reclamation amount', ‘H-transport tin and transport details', and ‘H-transport tin and transport details'.

The plaintiff stated that he received money at the time of the first day of pleading, and that he received money.

Even if it is based on the evidence No. 8 (written confirmation) of this case, the time when the place of the auction is received from the plaintiff.

that the defendant prepared and delivered a deposit sheet, or recorded in the column of the supplier of the deposit sheet.

On December 29, 2001, after the date of payment of a part of the purchase price, the registration of the business of the K General K General Airport was made.

The person who revealed the fact and the place of the auction in the court shall be at least three to four years after the banking operation is completed in this court.

Statements, such as testimony prepared and delivered, are not consistent and objective evidence;

is changed in accordance with the schedule, the banking work is completed, and the price has already been paid in full.

It goes against the common sense that preparing and delivering a deposit slip without any basis, such as account books, after 3 to 4 years;

The time ten years or more at the time of the defendant's tax investigation, and the details of deposit in the account, etc.

It is not verifiable and it is not possible to confirm the fact of transaction because there is no memory received in cash.

Considering the fact that the content certificate (No. 2) was prepared and awarded, it is difficult to believe.

In addition, according to the statements or images of Gap evidence 10, 11, and 12, the plaintiff shall do so on October 18, 2004.

Of each of the lands of this case, the Class II neighborhood living facilities, the building permission for detached houses, and the building permission for each of the lands of this case on December 18, 2004, 969-7 and 2 lots on the ground outside of the land of this case.

For the creation of annexed parking lots, the period of permission from December 2004 to January 31, 2005 shall be from January 31, 2005.

Permission for development activities (land form and quality change) has been obtained, and completed on November 11, 2005 until completion inspection is completed.

A. However, except for the foregoing deposit sheet, the contract for construction works, estimates, and

No objective data related to banking operations, such as purchase tax invoices, are presented;

The plaintiff's assertion that the payment in full to KRW 46.5 million was made in cash

In addition, it is against the general rule of experience at all materials to verify the source of cash by the Plaintiff.

In light of the fact that the submission was not possible, the above circumstance alone recognized.

There is a lack of recognition and there is no other evidence to recognize it.

Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.

AA

○ Head of tax office

July 13, 2016

August 10, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On May 8, 2014, the part of the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 49,320,294 against the plaintiff by the defendant of the Gu office in excess of KRW 37,002,50 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. AA. BB-GuCC 4 was 960-7 575 m2 and 969-7 m20 m2 (hereinafter referred to as “AA.”).