Cheongju District Court-2014-Gu Partnership-163 (Law No. 18, 2014)

Cho Jae-chul2013 Before 4022 ( December 30, 2013)

It cannot be recognized because there is a lack of proof to the existence of the intermediate seller after transferring the right to sell to the owner after the transfer.

Although the Plaintiff asserted that the intermediate seller had resold the right to sell the instant case, there is no objective evidentiary document, such as the contract for resale and payment relationship, and only testimony, so it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff reselled the right to sell the instant case.

Daejeon High Court (Cheongju) 2014Nu5706 revocation of disposition to impose capital gains tax.

Is 00

00. Head of tax office

Cheongju District Court Decision 2014Guhap163 Decided 18, 2014

2015.27

oly, 2015.24

1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The plaintiff's claim as to the above revoked part is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant revoked each disposition of imposition of capital gains tax and additional tax of KRW 306,742,050 for 202 and local income tax of KRW 30,674,200 for 202 against the plaintiff on April 15, 2013 (the part of the "local income tax" in the above claim was dismissed by the court of first instance, but it is excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court because the plaintiff did not appeal against the plaintiff).

2. Purport of appeal

The part of the judgment of the first instance against the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revocation shall be dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is to delete the part of the judgment on the part excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, and to delete the part of the judgment on the ground of appeal No. 16 through No. 13, the part on the ground of appeal No. 5, the part on the ground of appeal No. 16 through No. 8, the part on the ground of appeal No. 13, the same as the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, and to accept it in accordance

2. Parts in height:

In accordance with the evidence mentioned above, the facts of objective determination in this case are as follows: (a) the Plaintiff purchased the land in this case from 00 on October 19, 2001 to 795,882,000 won, and paid the down payment of KRW 79,58,200; (b) on July 12, 2002, nine months thereafter, the Plaintiff sold KRW 1,100,000 to 0 on July 12, 2002 (hereinafter “the sale of this case”); (c) on the second contract of this case prepared at the time, the Plaintiff entered the sale contract of this case as the Plaintiff’s agent; (d) the purchaser and 00 and 100, the husband’s 100 and 100,000, were known as the Plaintiff’s agent at the time of the sale; and (e) the Plaintiff received receipts from 00,000, the Plaintiff paid the sale price to the Plaintiff and 200,0000.

Therefore, the Plaintiff constitutes a seller under the civil law, and all acts objectively indicated in relation to the instant sales were conducted in the Plaintiff’s name. As such, since the seller of the instant sales is 00, the Plaintiff’s seller is not the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff is liable to prove such fact in this case’s assertion that the subject of tax revenue under Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes (excluding the amount of premium 10,000 won claimed by the Plaintiff among the profit margins of this case) is also a taxpayer of the instant sales, not a Plaintiff, (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Nu505, Dec. 11, 1984).

However, even if the Plaintiff alleged that the Plaintiff sold the instant sales right to Cho 00, the Plaintiff and Cho 00 did not present evidence that the Plaintiff paid the purchase price to the Plaintiff. Above all, both the Plaintiff and Cho 00 did not specify the sales price and the timing and method of payment between the Plaintiff and Cho 100. Although considering that the time of sales between the Plaintiff and Cho 00 is relatively old, the Plaintiff and Cho 100 are considered to have actually traded between the Plaintiff and Cho 100, if the fact that there was a real transaction between the Plaintiff and Cho 100, then it would be extremely exceptional.

Next, in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff acquired the instant land from the time of the instant purchase to the time of the instant purchase, and there was approximately KRW 300 million profit between the date of the instant purchase; (b) the Plaintiff’s partial testimony of the witness of the first instance trial; and (c) the Plaintiff changed the name of the buyer on September 14, 2002 to 00, the Plaintiff appears to have been aware of the instant purchase; (b) the Plaintiff appears to have been involved in the purchase and sale of the instant land No. 000 (hereinafter “the instant land”)’s purchase and sale of the instant land No. 1000,000 (hereinafter “the instant land”) around the instant land; and (c) the Plaintiff’s intention was difficult to change the name of the right to sell the instant land to 00,000,000, and it appears that the Plaintiff cooperate with the Plaintiff in the process of the instant purchase and sale after selling the instant land to 10,000.

As to this, the Plaintiff alleged in the initial complaint that the Plaintiff reported the transfer income tax on November 21, 2002 after receiving KRW 10,000,000 from 10,000 to 10,000,000, but the Plaintiff reported the transfer income tax on November 21, 2002. However, the transfer income tax that the Plaintiff reported on November 21, 2002 pursuant to paragraph (2) of the special terms and conditions of the contract of this case, prepared a false sales contract under which the amount calculated by adding the Plaintiff’s sales price to 10,00,000 won to 10,000,000 won to 10,000,000,000 won to 10,000,000 won to 10,000,000 won to 10,000 won

In addition, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that, even though 00 trillion won is about 00 persons who sell the instant right to sell to 00, the Plaintiff forged the instant secondary contract as if he were the Plaintiff. However, the Plaintiff appears to have been aware of the instant transaction from the beginning, and it does not appear that 00 was arbitrarily forged the instant secondary contract, contrary to what is alleged by the Plaintiff.

In addition to the above circumstances, in the case of a site of 000, KRW 00 was paid to the Plaintiff for the transfer income tax to be borne by KRW 00 and Park 00, while there seems to be no portion borne by the Plaintiff out of the transfer income tax reported on November 21, 2002, and Cho 00 also changed the name of the buyer in its own future when purchasing the right to sell the site of 000, unlike the case of the right to sell the land of this case. At the time of investigation into 00 years old, the Plaintiff stated to the effect that the Plaintiff sold the right to sell the land of this case to 00, as the seller who sold the right to sell the land of this case to 00 as the representative of the Plaintiff, and that there was no possibility that the Plaintiff purchased the land of this case and the site of this case as the parking lot of this case, and that there was no possibility that the Plaintiff purchased the right to sell the land of this case from 000 to 000, including the right to sell the land of this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of transfer income tax and additional tax shall be dismissed for lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair for this conclusion. Thus, the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance which accepted the defendant's appeal and dismissed the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the cancellation part. It