Daejeon District Court-2013-Gu -1794

Cho Jae-2012- Daejeon-3052

Although the seller claims the cancellation of the contract, the disposition imposing the transfer income tax by deeming the buyer to have sold and sold the purchase price to the seller is legitimate.

Among civil and criminal disputes surrounding a real estate sales contract, a contract prepared by both parties shall be deemed to have been prepared as an intention to re-sale rather than by the intention to cancel the contract, and a disposition imposing capital gains tax is legitimate.

Article 88 of the Income Tax Act, Transfer Income Tax Rate of Article 104 of the Income Tax Act

2014Gudan1104 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

OO

○○ Head of tax office

October 24, 2014

November 13, 2014

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 1,456,787,500 against the Plaintiff on November 1, 201 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

가. AAA는 2002. 12. 13. ㅇㅇ ㅇㅇ구 ㅇㅇ동 ㅇㅇ번지 대 1,153.6㎡(이하 "이 사건 토지"라 한다)에 관하여 본인 명의의 소유권이전등기, '채권최고액 1,690,000,000원, 채무자 AAA, 근저당권자 주식회사 BB은행(이하 "BB은행"이라 한다)'으로 하는 근저당권설정등기, '목적 수목 및 견고한 건물의 소유, 범위 토지 전부, 존속기간 2002. 12.13.부터 만 30개년, 지료 없음, 지상권자 BB은행'으로 하는 지상권설정등기를 각각 마쳤다.

B. On February 18, 2003, AA concluded a sales contract on the instant land with the Deceased (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) while having decided to sell the instant land to the CCC (the decedent of the Plaintiff, who died on July 12, 2008; hereinafter “the deceased”). The content of the instant sales contract is as follows.

--------------------- of the sales contract of the instant case ---------------------------- of the case.

Seller AA, the Deceased, and the Deceased

Sales Amount of KRW 2,750,000,000

Down payment of KRW 300,000,000 upon contract

Any balance of 2,450,000,000 April 1, 2003

loan 1,300,000,000

Matters of special agreement

1. The transfer of ownership on March 10, 2004 shall be made by the agreement between the seller and the purchaser on the purchase price and the transfer of ownership on March 10, 204.

2. All official expenses, the principal of and interest on bank loans, simultaneously with the receipt of the documents for the registration of transfer of ownership, shall be paid by the purchaser;

3. In cases where the purchaser transfers the ownership on March 10, 2004, the approval seal shall be affixed in accordance with the officially announced land value.

4. Where a purchaser needs to use the land after the transfer of ownership is registered, the seller shall provide all documents necessary for the use of the land;

-----------------------------------------------------------------------;

다. ㅇㅇ광역시 ㅇㅇ구청장은 2003. 3. 20. 망인에게 이 사건 토지상 건축허가를 하였다.

D. On April 1, 2003, AA completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage and the cancellation of the registration of the creation of superficies on the instant land as of April 1, 2003 on the ground of termination as of April 1, 2003. On the ground of a contract made on April 1, 2003, AA completed the registration of the establishment of superficies on the instant land as of April 1, 200, and respectively, AA completed the registration of the establishment of superficies as of "the maximum amount of claims 1,80,000,000 won, the debtor, the deceased, and the Korean Bank of Korea Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "D bank"), the establishment of a mortgage on the instant land as "the ownership of buildings or other structures or trees, the entire duration of the land, the entire duration of the land, 30 years from April 1, 2003, and the superficies

E. On April 3, 2003, AA completed on April 2, 2003 the registration of the right to claim ownership transfer on the land of this case on the ground of the promise to sell and purchase the land of this case.

F. The defendant conducted a tax investigation on gift tax from March 8, 2004 to May 25, 2004 on the deceased.

사. 망인은 2007. 3. 27. AAA를 상대로 ㅇㅇ지방법원 2007가합3074호로 "이 사건토지에 관하여 소유권이전청구권 보전을 위한 가등기에 기한 2003. 4. 30. 매매예약 완결을 원인으로 하는 소유권이전등기절차를 이행하라"는 소를 제기하였고, 2007. 5. 21.무변론에 의한 원고 승소판결을 받았다.

아. AAA는 사.항 기재 판결에 대하여 ㅇㅇ고등법원 2007나6091호로 항소를 제기하였고, 2007. 8. 31. 변론준비기일에서 이 사건 매매계약에 따른 대금 2,750,000,000원중 1,600,000,000원(= 계약금 300,000,000원 + 대출금 채무 승계 1,300,000,000원) 이외의 돈을 지급받지 못하였다고 주장하였다. 항소심 진행 중에 망인은 2008. 4. 3. AAA와 이 사건 토지에 관하여 다음과 같은 내용의 계약(이하 "이 사건 계약"이라 한다)을 체결하였고, 원고는 같은 날 AAA로부터 240,000,000원을 지급받았다.

------------------------- of the instant contract ----------------------------------- of the instant contract;

Total price: 4,100,000,000

Details

1. 240,00,000 won shall be paid in advance and some of 300,000,000 of the remainder shall be paid in advance on April 23, 2008.

The remaining balance will be paid by succession to the loan on May 8, 2008, and the remainder will be paid in full and at the same time terminate the provisional registration of transfer of ownership.

2. On April 23, 2008, the deceased paid KRW 300,000,000 and at the same time, he/she decides to cancel all civil and criminal issues.

3. In relation to the instant building permit, the change of the owner’s name is simultaneously performed with the payment of the remainder.

Design drawings and all other documents shall be assigned to them.

AA: AA

Receiving Person: Deceased

Receiving Agent: Plaintiff

-----------------------------------------------------------------------;

I. On May 29, 2008, the appellate court constituted a conciliation of the following (hereinafter “instant conciliation”) between the deceased and AA.

----------------------- of this case conciliation-------------------------------- of the case.

Conciliation Provisions

1. AA shall pay to the Deceased KRW 2 billion until June 30, 2008.

2. AA pays to the Deceased money described in paragraph 1. above at the same time.

가. 망인은 이 사건 토지에 관하여 ㅇㅇ지방법원 2004. 4. 3. 접수 제41112호로 마친 소유권이전등기청구권가등기 말소등기절차를 이행하고, 이 사건 토지상에 허가받은 건축허가에 대한 건축주명의를 AAA에게 이전하는 절차를 이행하고, 동 건축허가와 관련된 설계도면 및 기타 서류일체를 AAA에게 교부한다.

나. AAA는 이 사건 토지에 관하여 ㅇㅇ지방법원 2003. 4. 1. 접수 제40771호로 마친 근저당권(채권최고액 18억 원, 채무자 망인, 근저당권자 DD은행)의 피담보채무를 면책적으로 인수하되, 면책적 채무인수일 이전에 발생되어 있는 대출이자는 망인의 부담으로 한다.

3. AAA가 2008. 6. 30.까지 20억 6,000만 원을 망인에게 지급하지 않는 경우 AAA는 망인으로부터 5억 4,000만 원을 지급받음과 동시에 이 사건 토지에 관하여 ㅇㅇ지방법원 2003. 4. 3. 접수제41552호로 마친 소유권이전등기청구권가등기에 대한 2003. 4. 30. 매매예약완결을 원인으로 한 소유권이전등기절차를 이행한다.

4. The Deceased shall waive the remainder of his claim.

5. The costs of lawsuit and the costs of mediation shall be borne by each person;

-----------------------------------------------------------------------;

(j) On July 1, 2008, AA paid KRW 3.6 billion to the Plaintiff, a receiving agent of the deceased, out of KRW 4.1 billion stated in the instant contract, on the ground of cancellation on July 1, 2008, the registration of cancellation of the registration of the right to claim ownership transfer as stated in paragraph (e) was completed on the ground of cancellation on July 1, 2008, and cancellation of the registration of the right to claim ownership transfer as stated in paragraph (d) on the ground of cancellation on July 1, 2008, and on the ground of termination on July 1, 2008, the registration of cancellation of the right to claim ownership transfer as stated in paragraph (d) was completed on the ground of the contract as of July 1, 2008, respectively. The debtor AAA, the mortgagee, the mortgagee, the mortgagee, the mortgagee, the EE Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “EE Exchange Bank”), the entire period of ownership of buildings or other structures or land, the duration of superficies establishment as 00 million won.

카. 원고는 AAA를 상대로 ㅇㅇ지방법원 2009가합6329호로 500,000,000원 및 이에 대한 약정이자의 지급을 구하는 소를 제기하였고, 2010. 6. 10. "망인과 AAA가 2008. 4. 3. 이 사건 계약을 체결하였고, AAA가 2008. 6. 30.까지 대금을 지급하기로 이 사건 조정이 성립되었으나, 잔금 500,000,000원을 지급하지 못하여 AAA가 2008. 7. 1. 원고에게 '변제기 2008. 12. 22., 이자 연 6.5%'로 기재한 차용증을 작성하여 준 점에 비추어 보면, 원고와 AAA는 2008. 7. 1. AAA의 망인에 대한 미지급 잔금 500,000,000원에 대해서 지급기한을 2008. 12. 22.까지 연장하여 주면서 이자를 지급받기로 약정하였다고 할 것이다. 따라서 위 약정에 기하여 AAA는 원고에게 500,000,000원 및 이에 대한 약정이자를 지급할 의무가 있다"는 이유로 원고 승소판결을 받았다.

타. AAA는 카.항 기재 판결에 대하여 ㅇㅇ고등법원 2010나4507호로 항소를 제기하였다. 항소심 진행 중에 원고(갑)는 2010. 10. 1. AAA(을), FFF(병)과 다음과 같은 내용의 합의(이하 "이 사건 합의"라 한다)를 하였다.

-------------------------- of the agreement in this case and the arrangement in this case.

1. 갑은 ㅇㅇ지방법원 2009가합6329호 대여금 청구사건의 판결금액과 관련하여 을이 2010. 6. 29. ㅇㅇ지방법원 2010년 금제3189호로 공탁한 543,024,606원을 수령하는 외에 을에게 추가 금원을 요구하지 않는다.

2. 을은 위 사건의 항소사건인 ㅇㅇ고등법원 2010나4507호 대여금 청구사건의 항소를 취하한다.

3. A shall cancel the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage of KRW 500 million with respect to the instant land at the same time as B performs the obligations under paragraph (2).

4. Subsequent to the imposition of capital gains tax or inheritance tax related to the land in this case, paragraph 1 shall be null and void, and Section B shall be jointly and severally paid to Section A by adding 63,794,973 won and the amount at the rate of 20% per annum from October 1, 2010 to the due date.

(m) On October 1, 2010, AA completed registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage in the name of the Plaintiff as stated in paragraph (j) on the ground that the instant land was terminated on October 1, 2010.

(n) On November 1, 2011, the Defendant issued a disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 4,100,000,000, acquisition value of KRW 2,750,000,000, necessary expenses, KRW 100,000,00, capital gains and tax base of KRW 1,250,000,000, tax rate of KRW 70,000, and KRW 875,00,00,000, and penalty tax of KRW 350,00,000,00, and penalty tax of KRW 231,787,50,00, and penalty tax of KRW 200,00,00 for failure to report, and penalty tax of KRW 231,787,50,00 for failure to report, to the Plaintiff (including penalty tax of capital gains tax of KRW 4,200,00,00).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 4, 6 and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Deceased did not acquire the ownership of the instant land in a dispute over the payment of the purchase price pursuant to the instant sales contract with AA, and the instant contract constitutes a cancellation of the agreement of the instant sales contract rather than a sales contract. The Deceased incurred other income, not capital gains, due to the cancellation of the agreement of the instant sales contract, not capital gains, and thus, the instant disposition is unlawful.

2) At the time of the instant conciliation, there was a dispute between the Deceased and AA, and the Deceased could not register the ownership transfer of the instant land under the name of the Deceased. Since the Deceased’s provisional registration of ownership transfer was cancelled following the instant conciliation, there was no purpose of evading taxes against the Deceased. Nevertheless, the instant disposition that applied the tax rate of 70% on the premise that the Defendant was

3) The deceased does not meet the requirements for the application of the penalty tax on non-declaration of report, and the defendant applies 70% of the heavy tax rate due to the transfer of non-registration and applies again 40% of the penalty tax on non-declaration of report again to the same act is subject to double disadvantages. Therefore, the penalty tax on non-declaration of report among the instant disposition that applied the penalty tax rate of 40

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 3 is as listed in the "relevant Acts and subordinate statutes".

C. Determination

1) Determination on the Plaintiff’s first argument

Whether the instant contract is a rescission of the agreement on the instant sales contract, or whether AA re-purchases the instant land from the Deceased.

Contract termination or rescission contract refers to a new contract, regardless of whether the right of rescission exists or not, which aims to terminate the validity of the existing contract by mutual agreement and return to the same state as that in which the contract had not been concluded from the beginning (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da71926, Feb. 12, 2009).

살피건대, 위 법리 및 제1항의 인정사실, 을 제1, 3호증의 각 기재에 변론 전체의취지를 종합하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 망인이 2003. 2. 18.자 이 사건매매계약 직후인 2003. 3. 20. 이 사건 토지상 건축허가를 얻었고, AAA가 이 사건토지에 대하여 2003. 4. 1. 망인을 채무자로 하는 근저당권설정등기를, 2003. 4. 3. 망인에게 소유권이전청구권가등기를 각 마쳐주었으며, 이후 망인이 2007. 3. 27. AAA를 상대로 ㅇㅇ지방법원에 이 사건 토지에 관한 소유권이전등기절차의 이행을 구하는 소를 제기할 때까지는 AAA가 망인에게 대금 미지급을 주장하는 등의 다툼이 없었고, 비록 AAA가 ㅇㅇ고등법원 2007나6091호 소송계속 중 11억 5천만 원을 대금으로 지급받지 못하였다고 주장하였으나 이 사건 계약시에는 27억 5천만 원을 다 받은 것을 전제로 한 것으로 보이는 점을 종합하면 망인이 2003. 4. 1.경 이 사건 토지를 취득한 것으로 볼 수 있는 점, ② 합의해제는 당초부터 계약이 체결되지 않았던 것과 같은 상태로 복귀시킬 것을 내용으로 하는 새로운 계약인바, 이 사건 계약의 핵심 내용은 AAA가 망인에게 총 41억 원을 지급함과 동시에 망인이 본인 명의의 소유권이전청구권가등기를 말소하고, AAA에게 건축허가와 관련한 건축주 명의변경 등 절차를 이행하며, 민형사상 관련된 모든 문제를 취소하기로 한다는 것으로서, 계약이 체결되지 않았던 것과 같은 상태로 복귀시키고자 한다면 이 사건 매매계약의 매매대금인 27억 5,000만 원이 41억 원으로 상승할 만한 뚜렷한 이유가 없는 점, ③ 원고는 위 41억 원이 최초 매매대금 27억 5,000만 원, 망인이 부담한 이자 8억 5,000만 원, 망인이 부담한 종합부동산세 1억 원, 기타 민형사상 소송취하에 대한 보상 4억 원의 합계라고 주장하나, 기타 민형사상 소송취하를 이유로 AAA가 원고에게 4억 원이나 추가 지급하기로 했다는 것이 설득력이 없고, 원고가 조세심판단계에서는 위 41억 원이 최초 매매대금 27억 5,000만 원, 망인이 부담한 이자 5억 원, 망인이 부담한 종합부동산세 1억원, 기타 민형사상 소송취하에 대한 보상 7억 5,000만 원의 합계라고 주장하여 그 일관성도 부족한 점, ④ ㅇㅇ지방법원 2009가합6392호 판결문에도 "AAA가 망인으로부터 이 사건 토지를 대금 41억 원에 재매수하기로 합의하였다"는 내용이 있는 점, ⑤AAA가 2008. 7. 1. 이 사건 계약에 기재된 대금 41억 원 중 36억 원을 원고에게 지급하면서 이 사건 토지에 관하여 2008. 7. 1.자 해제를 원인으로 하여 제1. 마.항 기재 소유권이전청구권가등기의 말소등기를, 2008. 7. 1.자 해지를 원인으로 하여 제1. 라.항 기재 근저당권설정등기 및 지상권설정등기의 각 말소등기를 마침으로써 이 사건 토지가 AAA에게 사실상 유상으로 이전된 것으로 볼 수 있는 점을 종합하면 이 사건 계약은 당초부터 이 사건 매매계약이 체결되지 않았던 것과 같은 상태로 복귀시킬 것을 내용으로 하기 보다는 AAA가 망인으로부터 이 사건 토지를 재매수하는 취지인 것으로 보는 것이 타당하다. 따라서 원고의 이 부분 주장은 이유 없다.

2) Judgment on the second argument by the Plaintiff

The purport of the imposition of capital gains tax on unregistered transfer assets is to restrain and prevent real estate speculation, etc. in accordance with the transfer income tax, etc. or the transfer of assets without any tax evasion or any transfer marginal profit, etc. by the person who acquired the assets without registering the acquisition at the time of transfer. Thus, in the acquisition of the assets at the beginning, it is recognized that there is no speculative purpose such as tax evasion or resale acquisition through the transfer of assets, etc., and in cases where it is deemed that it is harsh to enforce the transfer of assets against the transferor at the time of transfer, the transfer of assets shall be excluded from the unregistered transfer assets whose transfer income tax is heavily excessive (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Du9494, Oct. 28, 2005).

The facts that AA filed a lawsuit against AA to refuse the registration of ownership transfer of the instant land by the deceased were as stated in paragraph (1). However, considering the circumstances that the Plaintiff was not unable to complete the registration of ownership transfer in the course of negotiations between the deceased and AA as to the instant land in the name of the Plaintiff, the above fact of recognition alone cannot be deemed as having any inevitable circumstance to avoid the registration of the deceased, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the return of the instant land on July 1, 2008, based on the instant contract and the instant land, constitutes a transfer of unregistered property, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

3) Judgment on the third assertion by the Plaintiff

The Plaintiff asserts that 40% of the penalty tax on the illegal filing of the instant disposition is illegal, but Article 47-2(2)1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 9263, Dec. 26, 2008) and Article 47-2(2)5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22038, Feb. 18, 2010) impose 40% of the penalty tax on the act without filing a tax base by concealing property or manipulating or concealing income, profit, act, or transaction. According to the fact of recognition under paragraph (1), it is legitimate to apply 40% of the penalty tax on the deceased as the act without filing a tax base by concealing the transaction of re-purchase.

Furthermore, the application of the heavy taxation rate of 70% to the income transferred without registering the acquisition at the time of transfer is intended for the person who acquired the assets to avoid various taxes, such as capital gains tax, or to restrain and prevent the speculation of real estate, etc. in accordance with the transfer without paying any residual gains, etc., and the purpose of securing the effectiveness of administrative laws and regulations through sanctions against the "violation of Duty to Report Tax Base" is different from the purpose of the system. Therefore, even if the heavy tax rate of 70% and the additional tax of 40% have reached the disposition of this case at the same time, it is difficult to deem that the disposition of this case is unlawful.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

4) Sub-committee

Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s claim is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked and the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as per Disposition.

Relevant statutes

◈구 소득세법(2008. 12. 26. 법률 제9270호로 개정되기 전의 것)

Article 4 (Classification of Income)

(1) Income of a resident shall be classified as follows:

3. Transfer income: Income accruing from a transfer of assets; and

Article 21 (Other Incomes)

(1) Other incomes shall include interest income, dividend income, real estate rental income, business income, labor income, annuity income, retirement income, and income other than transfer income as prescribed in the following subparagraphs:

10. Overdue charge or indemnities caused by a breach or cancellation of a contract;

§ 88. (Definition of Transfer)

(1) For the purpose of Article 4 (1) 3 and this Chapter, the term "transfer" means that any assets are actually transferred for price due to sale, exchange, investment in kind in a corporation, etc., regardless of any registration or enrollment concerning such assets. In such cases, if a donee takes over any obligation of a donor of an onerous donation (excluding cases falling under the main sentence of Article 47 (3) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act), the portion equivalent to the amount of such obligation in the donation amount shall be considered as the actual transfer for price of such assets.

(1) The amount of the transfer income tax of a resident shall be the amount calculated by applying the following tax rates to the tax base of transfer income in the current year (hereinafter referred to as "tax base of transfer income"). In such cases, if one asset falls under two or more of the tax rates under the following subparagraphs, the highest of such rates shall apply:

3. Unregistered transferred assets: 70/100 of the tax base of transfer income;

◈구 소득세법 시행령(2008. 7. 24. 대통령령 제20931호로 개정되기 전의 것)

Article 41 (Scope, etc. of Other Incomes)

(7) The term "compensation or indemnities" in Article 21 (1) 10 of the Act means the indemnification received due to a breach or termination of a contract on the property right, and refers to the money or the value of other goods to compensate the damages exceeding the damages to the payment itself which forms the contents of original contract, regardless of the title thereof. In such cases, if the value of money, etc. received due to a breach or termination of a contract does not exceed the gross amount paid initially under the contract terms, it shall not be deemed the value of money, etc

◈구 국세기본법(2008. 12. 26. 법률 제9263호로 개정되기 전의 것)

Article 47-2 (Additional Tax on Non-Filing)

(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1), where there is a tax base (referring to the amount of tax payable provided for in Articles 17 and 26 (2) of the Value-Added Tax Act in cases of value-added tax; hereafter the same shall apply in this Section) without filing a return in an unjust manner (referring to the manner prescribed by Presidential Decree, which is a violation of the duty to report the tax base or amount of national tax on the basis of the concealment or pretending of all or part of the fact that serves as the basis for calculating the tax base or amount of national tax; hereafter the same shall apply in this Section), the aggregate

1. The amount of additional tax on a non-reported tax base in an unjust manner: An amount equivalent to 40/100 of an amount calculated by multiplying the ratio of an amount equivalent to the non-reported tax base in an unjust manner (hereafter in this paragraph, referred to as "non-reported tax base") to the tax base by the calculated tax amount (hereafter in this paragraph, referred to as "additional tax on non-reported return"): Provided, That where a person subject to double-entry bookkeeping or a corporation fails to file a tax base return of income tax or corporate tax, it shall be the larger of an amount calculated by multiplying the amount of penalty tax on non-reported return by 14/10,000, the amount of income related to the non-reported tax base (hereafter in

◈ 구 국세기본법 시행령(2010. 2. 18. 대통령령 제22038호로 개정되기 전의 것)

(2) The method prescribed by the Presidential Decree in the part other than the subparagraphs of Article 47-2 (2) of the Act means the method falling under any of the following subparagraphs:

1. Making a false entry in books, such as double entry;

2. Preparation of false evidence or false documents (hereafter in this Article, referred to as false evidence or other evidence);

3. Receipt of false evidence (limited to receipt knowing that it is false).

4. Destruction of books and records;

5. Concealment of property, or fabrication or concealment of income, earnings, acts or transactions;

6. Any other fraudulent act to evade, receive a refund or deduction of national taxes.

Finally, the end