only the expenses for which the actual expenditure is confirmed shall be deemed as the necessary expenses.

Expenses verified that the Plaintiff paid to the broker by financial evidence, etc. may be deemed necessary expenses, but the remainder of the claims shall not be deducted as necessary expenses because it is objectively verified whether the actual expenses are paid.

Article 97 (Calculation of Necessary Expenses for Transfer Income)

Suwon District Court 2015Gudan6263 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing Capital Gains Tax

HasO et al.1

O Head of tax office

2017.024

2017.03.24

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 131,791,660 (including additional taxes) of the transfer income tax for the year 2007, as against Plaintiff Jeongs on October 1, 2014, and the imposition of KRW 11,514,770 (including additional taxes) of the transfer income tax for the year 2007 against Plaintiff Jeong on May 6, 2015, respectively, shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

(1) On December 28, 2006, on December 28, 2006, 12 persons, including the plaintiffs, have completed the registration of ownership transfer (the total amount of KRW 551,250,000 on November 20, 2006, and the total amount of KRW 551,250,000 on November 20, 200, Gangwon-do 00-Do 000-do 000-do 000,000 (hereinafter “the forest of this case”) (the co-ownership shares of the plaintiffs 1487, 72893, the co-ownership shares of the plaintiffs Aa, 1819-do 72893), on the whole shares of the co-owners, the registration of ownership transfer in the name of a corporation Aari-U on June 26, 207 (the cause of the registration, the trading price of May 30, 2007, 8000).

around September 2007, the plaintiffs reported and paid the transfer income tax on the land of this case (the acquisition value and transfer value are the amount calculated by multiplying the transaction value of this case by the plaintiffs' co-ownership share in relation to 51,250,000 won and 800,000 won on the above register).

○ Plaintiff’s Periodicals: Date of acquisition on December 28, 2006 / Date of June 26, 2007 / Acquisition value 162,494,461 won (actual transaction value) / Transfer value 235,819,626 won (actual transaction value) / Quantity of small income / Quantity of income 65,230,165 won / Transfer income 37,638,099 won

○ Plaintiff A: Date of acquisition on December 28, 2006 / Date of June 26, 2007 / Acquisition value of 13,756,105 won (actual transaction value) / Transfer value of 19,963,508 won (actual transaction value) / Quantity of small income of 5,514,923 won / Transfer Income Tax of 3,308,953 won

(1) On October 1, 2014, 2007, the Defendant issued a disposition of this case 1,514,770 won (including additional tax) to correct and notify the Plaintiff’s rights of KRW 131,791,660 (including additional tax) of the capital gains tax belonging to the year 2007, on the ground that the transfer value was under-reported and under-paid based on KRW 800,000,000,000, and on May 6, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition of this case 2 to correct and notify Plaintiff A of the capital gains tax belonging to the year 2007.

Claimant filed an objection with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on December 29, 2014, against the instant Disposition No. 1; however, upon dismissal on March 13, 2015, the Plaintiff Company filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on June 11, 2015, but partially accepted the request on September 17, 2015. The Plaintiff Company dissatisfied with the instant Disposition No. 2 and filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on November 12, 2015, but was dismissed on December 4, 2015.

Facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 3-4, 5, 6-1, 2, Gap evidence 7-1, 2, 3, 4, 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

(1) The plaintiffs asserted that the disposition of this case was unlawful since it was conducted five years after the exclusion period of the disposition of this case. <2> when the forest of this case was purchased in 551,250,000 won, the purchase price of forest trees on the ground of this case was KRW 150,000,000, and the cost of access road construction paid at the time of purchase of the forest of this case, KRW 90,500,000,000, which was paid to gggggg as at the time of transfer of the forest of this case including the transfer of the forest of this case, and KRW 170,50,000,000, excluding the remainder of KRW 175,50,000,000, which was recognized by the defendant as the transfer of the grave of this case, the amount corresponding to the plaintiff's share should be recognized more than the total of KRW 385,00,00,005.

D. On the grounds delineated below, the instant disposition is determined not to impose the exclusion period.

In full view of Article 26-2(1)1 and 3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Articles 12-2(1) and 12-3(1)1 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, the starting date of the exclusion period for the transfer income tax belonging to the 2007 of this case shall be June 1, 2008, which is the day following the tax base return deadline (from May 1, 2008 to May 31, 2008), and (2) the exclusion period shall be five years in principle, or five years in cases where it is difficult for the plaintiffs to discover the taxation requirement of the national tax or fraudulent acts, and it is difficult for them to expect the exercise of the imposition right of 10 years in consideration of the fact that it is difficult for them to expect the exercise of the imposition right of 10 years. "Fraud or other unlawful acts" which are the requirement for application of the exclusion period for the imposition of 10 years to 20 years or more are considerably impossible to impose and collect the transfer income tax or other unlawful acts, and it does not constitute a false act.

Considering the following circumstances, Gap's above evidence and Gap's 1. 3 increase of 00 billion won and Eul's 1. 5 billion won, and Eul's 2's increase of 00 billion won and Eul's increase of 1. 5 billion won, i.e., the sale contract for the forest land of this case cannot be deemed to have any value separate from the forest land's 1. 8 billion won, the co-ownership right holders, including the plaintiffs, make an agreement on May 7, 2007 that the forest land will be sold for 50 billion won, and the plaintiffs' 1. 4 billion won and 1. 5 billion won will be reduced to 00 billion won for the purpose of 1. 5 billion won for the above sale. 2 billion won for the purpose of 1. 4 billion won for the purpose of 200 billion won for the sale of forest land and 1. 5 billion won for the purpose of 18. 20 billion won for the purpose of 200 billion won for the above sale contract.

The plaintiffs asserted that although theq was entrusted with brokerage of purchase and sale and the business of reporting transfer income tax, the difference between the total purchase price of 1.3 billion won and the purchase price of 800 million won to the plaintiffs, the transfer value is reduced at their own discretion in order to maximize their brokerage fees, and there is no difference between the variable and the purchase price of 800 million won, but the amount that the plaintiffs would receive is changed to 80 million won. Even if the changeq was committed an unlawful act such as actively reducing the purchase price, the plaintiffs did not participate in such unlawful act and did not intend to evade tax, so the exclusion period of 10 years cannot be applied. However, even according to the above argument by the plaintiffs, ① the plaintiffs did not request q to pay 1.3 billion won or more to them, and the plaintiffs did not know that the above change in the purchase price was 300 million won or more, and the plaintiffs' total purchase price was 1.3 billion won or more, and it could not be seen that there was no way to recognize that the plaintiffs actually paid the purchase price as the sale price of this case.

Referencely, on the grounds as seen below, the plaintiffs' remaining arguments cannot be accepted.

First, in relation to the purchase price of forest trees of this case, there is a sales contract (the purchase price of forest trees of KRW 440 million) dated April 1, 2006, a sales contract (the purchase price of forest trees of KRW 150 million) dated April 1, 2006, and a sales contract (the purchase price of forest land of KRW 51,250,000) dated November 20, 2006. However, in the register, it is difficult to view that the transaction price of forest trees is KRW 51,250,000 as well as that of the seller separately from the sale price of forest land of this case. However, considering that the sale price of forest land of this case becomes a separate trader, it is difficult to view that the plaintiffs' purchase price of forest trees is different from the sale price of forest land of this case without examining whether it is separate from the sale price of forest land of this case, and if it is not determined differently from the sale price of forest land of this case.

Second, in relation to the construction cost of access roads, it is not sufficient to acknowledge the plaintiff's assertion only by the descriptions of Gap evidence 10-1 (Agreement), Gap evidence 10-2 (Receipt), Gap evidence 10-3 and 4 (each note). There is no other evidence to acknowledge them.

Third, as to whether to recognize additional brokerage commission, each statement in Gap evidence 9-1 (Receipt) and evidence Nos. 9-2 (Transaction Confirmation) alone is insufficient to acknowledge the plaintiff's assertion, and there is no other evidence to support this. If the change is claimed by the plaintiffs, q would pay only KRW 800 million to the plaintiffs, but 500 million, which is the difference between KRW 1.3 billion and KRW 800 million, would be the difference between the difference between the 1.3 billion and the 1.3 billion, and it is difficult to accept that 145,500,000 won was paid to the q without any financial data when 13 won was deposited into the deposit account of all plaintiffs Jeongs.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed in entirety due to the lack of reasonable grounds.