Seoul Administrative Court 2013Gudan6452 ( November 13, 2013)

2012west 4352 ( December 20, 2012)

A contract of the nature in which the final amount of the balance, which is to be settled after identifying assets and liabilities, is not determined, does not fall under the long-term installment condition.

The instant stock transfer contract provides that the transferee shall pay the balance as a result of the confirmation of the balance after ascertaining the assets and liabilities, and thus, it is a contract of the nature in which the final balance is not determined, and it does not provide that the payment shall be made in installments by means of a monthly, annual, or other installment payment, and thus does not constitute a long-term installment condition.

2013Nu52379 Revocation of imposition disposition, etc. of capital gains tax

1. ParkA 2. GaB

1. Distribution director of the tax office; and

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2013Gudan6452 decided November 13, 2013

April 16, 2014

April 30, 2014

All appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiffs

.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons why this court should explain are especially emphasized by this court.

The decision of the court of first instance is identical to the reasons for the decision of the court of first instance, and such decision shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant stock transfer contract constitutes a long-term installment condition under Article 78(3) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs No. 15 of Apr. 29, 2008, hereinafter the same), and thus, the time of transfer is determined pursuant to Article 162(1)3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19890 of Feb. 28, 2007; hereinafter the same shall apply). Therefore, the instant disposition imposing capital gains tax only after the lapse of the exclusion period of the right to impose capital gains tax on the transfer of the instant shares is unlawful.

B. Determination

(1) Article 98 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9897 of Dec. 31, 2009) provides that the time of acquisition and time of transfer of assets shall be determined by the Presidential Decree. Accordingly, Article 162(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that the time of acquisition and time of transfer shall be the date of liquidation of the price of the relevant assets under Article 98 of the former Enforcement Decree. Provided, That where the date of settlement under each subparagraph is unclear, the date of receipt of registration or transfer (including subparagraph 1), the date of receipt of registration entered in the registry, registry, or registry, or registry, etc., if the price is settled, the date of receipt of ownership (including the date of registration and transfer), the date of delivery of assets (including the date of registration and transfer), and the date of receipt of ownership transfer or transfer registration for a long-term installment period from the date following that entered in the registry, registry, or registry, etc., to the date of prompt receipt of ownership (including the date of registration and transfer).

In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the share transfer contract of this case is a contract of the nature that the transferee shall pay the balance of the balance after ascertaining the assets and liabilities, and the amount of the balance has not been determined, and it cannot be paid in installments by means of monthly, annual, or other payment methods. Therefore, the share transfer contract of this case cannot be deemed as the "long-term installment terms" under Article 162 (1) 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act and Article 78 (3) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit without any need to further examine it.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be this.

As the conclusion is justified, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.