Early High Court Decision 2008J3235 ( December 18, 2008)

Any act of filing a false report on the transfer income tax with a sales contract shall be deemed to constitute a fraud or other unlawful means.

Since it was exempted from the obligation to pay capital gains tax, which is a national tax, by submitting a false sales contract, and it was evaded, the exclusion period for imposition of ten years shall apply.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 73,242,040 against the Plaintiff on August 10, 2008 and KRW 2,197,260 shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

가. 원고는 1999. 8. 2. 서울지방법원 98타경 38082호 부동산 경매사건에서 서울 ☆☆구 ★★동 31-155 외 1필지 지상의 ○○아파트 1207호 78.71㎡(이하 '이 사건 부동산'이라 한다)를 83,700,000원에 낙찰 받아 같은 해 8. 10. 소유권 이전등기를 하였다.

B. On March 10, 200, the Plaintiff transferred the instant real estate to Nonparty Kim Il-chul, and on April 10, 200, the Plaintiff filed a preliminary return on the tax base of capital gains tax with the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the assessment of capital gains tax. The transfer value of the instant real estate reported by the Plaintiff was KRW 90,00,000.

C. As above, I purchased the instant real estate from the Plaintiff, and then transferred it again to the non-party Kim Si-U.S. on January 30, 2002, and filed a preliminary return of the transfer income tax base with the head of the Gu/Si/Gun tax office in Seoul Special Metropolitan City on January 30, 200, and the acquisition value of the instant real estate reported by the Kim

D. Accordingly, on July 1, 2008, the Defendant deemed the real transfer value of the instant real estate between the Plaintiff and Kim Il-chul as KRW 168,00,000, and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 73,242,047 of the transfer income tax for the year 2000 (hereinafter “the instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is proper; and

A. The plaintiff's principal

1) As the Plaintiff transferred the instant real estate to Kim Il-chul, the instant disposition that deemed the actual transfer value of the said real estate to KRW 168,000,000 is unlawful.

2) Even if 168,00,000 won is the actual transfer value, it is unreasonable to impose the transfer income tax of KRW 79,581,000, which is close to the difference, and impose the transfer income tax of KRW 73,242,047, which is not consistent with the ordinary common sense, and to impose the penalty tax even after 8 years have elapsed since the filing of the transfer income tax return.

(b) Related statutes;

It shall be as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) The sales price of the instant real estate between the Plaintiff and Kim Il-chul

을 제2호증의 2, 제3호증의 2의 각 기재 및 변론 전체의 취지에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 원고가 2000. 4. 10. 양도소득세 과세표준 예정신고를 하면서 ◎◎세무서장에게 제출한 이 사건 부동산의 매매계약서(을 제2호증의 2)에는 아파트 소재지만 기재되어 있고 대지지분과 건물 면적, 특약사항, 중개인 등의 기재가 없는 반면, 김●●가 2002. 1. 30. 양도소득세 과세표준 예정신고를 하면서 ☆☆세무서장에게 제출한 이 사건 부동산의 매매계약서(을 제3호증의 2)에는 매매목적물인 이 사건 부동산의 대지 지분과 건물면적, 특약사항, 중개인 김����의 상호 및 연락처 등이 기재되어 있고, 김선 일의 날인이 있는 점, ② 원고는 이 법정에서 김●●가 제출한 매매계약서에 있는 원고의 서명과 날인이 위조되었다는 주장을 하지 아니한 점, ③ 김●●는 양도소득세 과세표준 예정신고를 하면서 이 사건 부동산의 매매계약서와 함께 중개대상물 확인ㆍ설명서를 제출하였는데, 동 확인ㆍ설명서에 날인된 김●●의 인영은 김●●가 제출한 매매계약서에 있는 김●●의 인영과는 일치하는 반면, 원고가 제출한 매매계약서에 있는 김●●의 인영과는 일치하지 아니한 점 등을 고려하면, 김●●가 제출한 매매계약서가 이 사건 부동산의 실제 매매계약서이며, 원고가 제출한 매매계약서는 이 사건 부동산에 대한 원고의 양도소득세액을 줄이기 위하여 사실과 다르게 작성된 것이라고 판단된다. 따라서 이 사건 부동산의 실제 양도가액이 90,000,000원이라는 원고의 주장은 이유 없다.

2) Whether the instant disposition is unlawful

As seen earlier, on April 10, 200, the Plaintiff filed a return on the sales price of the instant real estate with the director of the tax office having jurisdiction over the amount of income to be reported by lowering the sales price of the instant real estate to be lower than the actual sales price, and did not pay the amount of tax to be paid. This constitutes the subject of additional tax under Article 115(1) and (2) of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8144 of Dec. 30, 2006; hereinafter the same shall apply). According to the evidence evidence No. 1, the Plaintiff’s disposition included additional tax of KRW 73,242,047 among the amount of capital gains tax imposed on the Plaintiff through the instant disposition (i.e., penalty tax of KRW 3,021,985 + Additional tax of KRW 39,387,982 for the Plaintiff’s failure to report + penalty tax of KRW 982 for the Plaintiff’s failure to pay the transfer income tax due to the Plaintiff’s failure.

And as seen earlier,

Since the Plaintiff’s unlawful act of submitting a false sales contract, thereby evading the exemption from the obligation to pay capital gains tax, which is a national tax, is subject to the exclusion period of ten years pursuant to Article 26-2(1)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and Article 115 of the Income Tax Act does not limit the period to which penalty tax may be imposed, it is unreasonable to impose penalty tax after the lapse of eight years from the date of filing a report on capital gains tax.

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

3. Conclusion

Inasmuch as the plaintiff's claim is groundless, it is so decided as per Disposition.