Global Income Detailed Invalidity and Invalidity of Disposition

In addition, it is difficult to recognize the defects asserted by the Plaintiff only with the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, and whether the key money was paid as the sales price under the first sales contract can only be clarified only when the tax authority should accurately investigate the facts. Thus, even if there is a defect claimed by the Plaintiff in the instant disposition, such defect cannot be seen as apparent.

The contents of the judgment are the same as attachment.

Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act [Disposition of Income]

2017Guhap67163 Of global income and confirmation of invalidity of disposition

CHAPTER A

BB Director of the Tax Office

November 15, 2017

on October 10, 2018

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

On June 10, 2015, the Defendant confirmed that a disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 1,163,723,510 against the Plaintiff (including KRW 125,518,827 as well as KRW 410,610,554 as general non-permanent and additional tax and KRW 410,610,554 as additional tax) is null and void.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff was appointed on May 19, 2006 as the representative director of ○○ Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "○○ Construction"), but resigned on September 18, 2006. CCC that died on October 10, 2013 as the plaintiff's wife was appointed on October 23, 2006 as the joint representative director of ○○ Head Construction, and then resigned on March 20, 2007. DD, EE, FF is the plaintiff's child.

B. The details of the sales contract and the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the same 376-1 square meters (the previous land category; hereinafter referred to as “second 2 land”) and 375-1 square meters (the previous land category; hereinafter referred to as “the previous 2 land”) in the name of the Plaintiff ○○○○○○○○○○○-gun, ○○○○○○-gun, 376-9, 695 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “the instant 1/10 square meters”) in the name of CCC (7/10 shares), DD, EE, FF (each 1/10 shares), are as follows.

○ Of the instant land and the instant two land, DD, EE, FF shares

-The first sale contract concluded between the Plaintiff, DD, EE, FF on May 29, 2006 and the buyer’s ○○ case (hereinafter referred to as “the first sale contract”) for the reasons of the 2,600,000,000 won of the purchase price between the Plaintiff, DD, EE, FF and the buyer’s ○○ case, the registration of ownership transfer has been completed from the Plaintiff, DD, EE, FF on May 30, 2006

- On March 12, 2007, the sales contract was concluded between the seller's ○○ Construction and the buyer, corporation (hereinafter "GGGGG") for KRW 2,549,066,111 on the grounds of the purchase price of KRW 2,549,06,11, and the registration of ownership transfer has been filed in the GGG from March 12, 2007.

○ As to the CCC shares among the land of this case 2 and the land of this case 3

- On March 12, 2007, a seller and a buyer of GGGGG enter into a sales contract of KRW 2,250,93,889 (hereinafter referred to as "the second sales contract" in total of the above sales contracts entered into on March 12, 2007). On March 12, 2007, a seller entered into an inheritance tax investigation of around October 2014. * The director of the Regional Tax Office (the director of the Regional Tax Office) shall file an ownership transfer registration from CCC in the name of CCC on March 12, 2007.

The fact that KRW 4,050,000 has been deposited in the account of △△ Bank. The fact that the said money was deposited in KRW 4,80,000 according to the second sale contract concluded on March 12, 2007 £« KRW 2,549,546,111 on each of the instant land purchase price (=land 1 and land 2 of this case and DD, EE, FF share out of the instant land 2 + KRW 2,549,06,111 on each of the instant land purchase price

Part of CCC shares among the land in this case and 2,250,933,889 won for the land in this case 2

The tax authority notified the corporate tax data to the competent tax authority.

D. According to the disposition of imposition of corporate tax following the notification of the above taxation data, the Defendant decided and notified the Plaintiff of the global income tax of KRW 1,163,723,510 (including the global income tax of KRW 125,518,827 and the additional tax of KRW 410,65,827 and the additional tax of KRW 410,654,554) on June 11, 2015 on the premise that the amount of KRW 2,250,93,889 among the land of this case and KRW 1,79,06,111 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) was out of the company and reverted to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 3, and Gap evidence 4

-2, Gap evidence 6, Gap evidence 7-1, Gap evidence 8, Gap evidence 11-5, Eul evidence 1-1, Eul evidence 1-2,

set forth in subparagraph 4, and the purport of the whole oral proceedings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff is deemed to have received the key money equivalent to DD, EE, and FF share out of the instant land and the instant land 1 and DD, EE, and FF share in the instant land without receiving the purchase price pursuant to the first sales contract from ○○○ case. As such, the instant land and the instant land 2, the key money equivalent to DD, EE, and FF share, out of the purchase price under the second sales contract received from GGGGGG, should be deemed to have been paid as the purchase price under the first sales contract. The instant disposition on a different premise is null and void because its defect is serious and clear.

B. Determination

Generally, a taxation disposition made on a person who does not have any factual relation, income or act, etc., which is subject to taxation, shall be deemed to be significant and apparent, but in case where there are objective circumstances that could mislead him to believe that it is subject to taxation with respect to any legal relation or fact which is not subject to taxation, if it is apparent whether it is subject to taxation or not, and if it can only be clarified in a correct manner, it cannot be deemed to be apparent even if the defect is serious, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the illegal taxation disposition that misleads the fact subject to taxation is void as a matter of course (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du7268, Sept. 4

In light of the above facts, according to the following facts, ○ case, which was prepared for the first sale contract, stated on May 30, 2006 that the purchaser of the first sale contract, paid the balance of the purchase price to the Plaintiff, DD, EE, and FF, and the certificate of completion of the first sale contract on May 30, 2006 also stated that the ○○ case was paid the balance of the purchase price on May 30, 2006. In light of the above facts, it is difficult to acknowledge the defects asserted by the Plaintiff solely based on the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, and whether the Plaintiff received the payment of the first sale price under the first sale contract, etc., can only be seen as having been made accurately by the tax authority. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the disposition of this case is not clear even if the Plaintiff asserted that it was a defect in appearance.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.