Whether the time of transfer is when the time of transfer

In this case, where the date of settlement of payment is clear, the date of the balance payment agreement shall not be the standard for the time of transfer.

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

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. 2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. Details of the instant taxation disposition

Gap evidence 1, 4, 5, 6-1 through 6, 7-1 through 5, 8-1, 2, 3, 11-1, 2, 12-1, 12-1, 1-2, 1-2, 3, 3-1 through 8, 4, 5, and 6-1 through 8, 4-2, 5, and 6-1, 12-1, 1-2, 1-3, 3-1, 3-1 through 3-8, 4-2, and 6, and there is no counter-proof.

가. 원고는 1989. 11. 1. 소외 김ㅇ웅과의 사이에 원고 소유의 별지 제1목록 기재 각 부동산(원고가 1986. 10. 15. 그 소유권을 취득하였음)과 원고가 대표이사로 있는 소외 ㅇㅇ산업주식회사 소유의 별지 제2목록 기재 부동산에 관하여 총 매매대금을 1,125,000,000원으로 하고 계약금을 150,000,000원으로 하며 제1차 중도금 100,000,000원은 같은 해 11. 30.에, 제2차 중도금 100,000,000원은 같은 해 12. 26.에, 잔금 775,000,000원은 1990. 2. 28.에 각 지급받기로 하는 내용의 매매계약서를 작성하고 당일 위 계약금을 지급받았다.

나. 위 김ㅇ웅이 원고 등을 상대로 위 각 부동산의 소유권이전등기 청구의 소를 제기하자 원고 등은 위 김정웅이 위 잔금의 전부 또는 적어도 그 중 금 300,000,000원은 1989. 12. 31.까지 앞당겨서 지급하기로 구두약정하였는데 이를 어겼다는 등의 이유로 1990. 2. 17. 위 계약을 해제하였다고 항변하였으나 1991. 7. 26. 선고된 제1심 판결에서 위 항변이 배척되고 위 잔금 775,000,000원의 지급과 동시이행으로 소유권이전등기절차를 이행하라는 판결이 선고되었고, 1993. 8. 20.의 원고 등의 항소기각판결을 거쳐 1994. 5. 10. 원고 등의 상고기각판결이 선고되자 위 김ㅇ웅은 1994. 9. 29. 원고 등에게 위 잔금 775,000,000원을 지급하고 1994. 10. 12. 위 각 부동산에 관하여 자신 앞으로 소유권이전등기를 경료하였다.

다. 원고가 위 각 부동산의 양도로 인한 양도차익 예정신고나 과세표준 확정신고를 하지 아니하여, 피고는 1996. 3. 16. 별지 제1목록 기재 부동산 중 ㅇㅇ시 ㅇㅇ동 ㅇㅇ번지의 2 전 272제곱미터를 제외한 나머지 부동산(이하 이 사건 부동산이라고 한다)의 양도로 인한 양도차익을 계산함에 있어 이 사건 부동산의 취득가액은 위 취득일인 1986. 10. 15.의 기준시가로 하고 이 사건 부동산의 양도가액은 위 소유권이전등기일인 1994. 10. 12.의 기준시가로 하여 양도차익을 산정한 후 원고에 대하여 이 사건 부동산의 양도로 인한 양도소득세 금 548,614,480원(그 중 본세가 금 457,178,739원이고 나머지는 신고불성실가산세와 납부불성실가산세임)을 부과하였다.

라. 위 김ㅇ웅이 이 사건 부동산 중 ㅇㅇ시 ㅇㅇ동 ㅇㅇ번지의 13 전 2,354제곱미터에 관하여 같은 동 ㅇㅇ번지의 4 답 2,886제곱미터에 비하여 1994년도 개별공시지가가 너무 낮게 책정되어 있다고 ㅇㅇ시장에게 이의신청을 하여 ㅇㅇ시장은 관계 법령의 절차를 거쳐 1995. 9. 21. 위 ㅇㅇ동 ㅇㅇ번지의 13의 1994. 1. 1. 현재의 개별공시지가를 제곱미터당 183,000원에서 337,000원으로 경정하였고, 위 경정사실을 알게 된 피고는 1997. 10. 23. 위 높아진 개별공시지가를 기준시가로 하여 이 사건 부동산의 양도차익을 산출하여 원고에 대하여 이 사건 부동산의 양도로 인한 양도소득세를 금 144,045,910원 증액시켜 금 692,660,390원(그 중 본세가 금 601,224,653원이고 나머지는 신고불성실가산세와 납부불성실가산세임)으로 증액경정하여 부과하였다(이하 위와 같이 금 692,660,390원으로 증액경정된 부과처분을 이 사건 처분이라 한다).

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The Defendant asserts that the instant disposition is lawful in light of the relevant statutes and the grounds for the said disposition.

(2) The plaintiff asserts as follows.

First, as in the case of this case, there is a dispute between the parties to the transaction as to the time when the contract date for the payment of the remainder is when and when, through a lawsuit for a long time, it is deemed that the contract date for the payment of the balance under the original sales contract is the date of the agreement for the payment of the balance under the original sales contract, and where the concurrent performance becomes virtually final and conclusive by a final and conclusive judgment, the time of the transfer of real estate is not the date of payment of the actual balance

Second, in a case where a taxpayer requests the application of the actual transaction price, rather than the case of the determination of transfer margin based on the actual transaction price, even though the taxpayer did not make the preliminary return of transfer margin or the final return of tax base, if the taxpayer presents evidentiary documents related to the actual transaction price not later than the closing day of argument in the administrative litigation seeking the cancellation of the pertinent taxation, the amount of tax calculated by such method should be calculated based on the actual transaction price. Since the amount of tax calculated by such method is KRW 255,671,564

Third, it is against the principle of no taxation without law, the principle of no taxation without law, or the principle of no comprehensive delegation prohibition, or the principle of no taxation without law, if the transfer income tax (including additional dues) exceeds the transfer margin based on the actual transaction price of the real estate in this case by limiting the period of proof of actual transaction value to the time of the preliminary return of transfer margin or the final return of tax base, thereby allowing the failure to perform the above procedural duty to report as above to create processed income.

넷째, 위 ㅇㅇ동 ㅇㅇ번지의 13 전 2,354제곱미터에 관하여 원고의 소유기간 동안의 개별공시지가가 결정, 고시된 후에 새 소유자의 이의신청에 의하여 행정청이 이를 경정하였어도 위 경정이 원고에게 불리한 경우에는 불이익변경금지의 원칙이나 소급과세금지의 원칙상 이를 소급적용하여서는 아니되며 또한 신의칙상 새 소유자의 이의신청에 따른 경정으로 옛 소유자인 원고의 권익을 해칠 수 없는데도 피고가 위와 같이 증액경정한 것은 위법하다.

B. Determination

(1) Judgment on the plaintiff's first argument

(A) Relevant statutes

In calculating gains on transfer of assets, Article 27 of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4803, Dec. 22, 1994; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that the time of acquisition and time of transfer shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree. Article 53 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14467, Dec. 31, 1994; hereinafter the same shall apply) shall be the date of settlement of the price except in any of the following cases:

(B) Determination

앞서 본 바와 같이 원고와 위 김ㅇ웅 사이에 대금을 청산한 날이 1994. 9. 29.이므로 이 사건 부동산의 양도시기는 1994. 9. 29.이라 할 것이고 따라서 이 때를 기준으로 하여 이 사건 부동산의 양도가액을 산정하여야 할 것이며, 원고가 위 민사소송에서 위 매매계약상의 잔금지급약정일이 바뀌었다고 주장을 하였으나 이 주장이 받아들여지지 아니하여 위 매매계약상의 잔금지급약정일은 원래대로 1990. 2. 28.인 것으로 확정되었어도, 대금청산일이 언제인지가 분명한 이 사건에 있어 잔금지급약정일은 양도시기를 정하는 기준이 되지 아니함이 위 법령상 명백하므로 원고의 첫째 주장은 이유 없다. 피고가 이 사건 부동산의 양도시기를 위 등기접수일인 1994. 10. 12.로 본 것은 잘못이지만, 뒤에서 보는 바와 같이 기준시가에 의하여 양도가액을 산출하는 이 사건에 있어 양도시기를 1994. 9. 29.로 보든 1994. 10. 12.로 보든간에 1994년 개별공시지가에 의하여 양도가액을 산출하는데 차이가 없으므로 이 사건 처분은 결과적으로 정당하다.

(2) Judgment on the second argument by the Plaintiff

(A) Relevant statutes

Article 23 (1) 1 of the Income Tax Act stipulates that the income accruing from the transfer of land or building in the current year is one of the capital gains subject to the addition of the capital gains tax, and Articles 23 (4) 1 and 45 (1) 1 (a) of the same Act provides that in such cases, the transfer value and acquisition value, which is the basis for the calculation of capital gains, shall, in principle, be the standard market price at the time of the transfer and acquisition of the relevant assets, and in such cases as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, it shall be based on the actual transaction price, and Article 170 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the actual transaction price at the time of the transfer shall be based on the actual transaction price, which is one of

(B) Determination

Article 23 and (4) 1 and Article 45 (1) 1 of the Income Tax Act, and Article 170 (4) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act declares that the transfer margin was converted from the conventional transaction principle to the standard market price, an exception to the principle of substantial taxation, in cases where assets are transferred, or there is no preliminary return of transfer margin or final return of tax base, or there is no evidentiary document proving the actual transaction price at the time of filing the return, or where it is confirmed that only one of the acquisition values or transfer values is confirmed by documentary evidence submitted at the time of filing the return, even if all of the actual transaction values are confirmed later, the transfer margin should be calculated based on the standard market price, and it shall not be based on the actual transaction price (see Supreme Court Decision 95Nu13807, May 10, 1996).

As to this case, the real acquisition value of the real estate of this case is not confirmed since there is no evidence to acknowledge it in addition to the statement Nos. 9-3 and 4 of the plaintiff's actual acquisition value of the real estate of this case and the testimony under Article 3-4 of the witness Kim Kim -. Second, as seen earlier, the plaintiff did not make the preliminary return of transfer margin or the final return of tax base of the real estate of this case. Thus, even if the actual transaction value is confirmed later, the transfer margin should be calculated according to the standard market price and it is not based on the actual transaction price. Thus, the plaintiff's second argument of this case cannot be

(3) Judgment on the plaintiff's third assertion

In a case where transfer margin is calculated based on the standard market price, the tax amount calculated based on the standard market price cannot exceed the scope of transfer margin based on the actual transaction price, and the amount of tax calculated based on the standard market price is the principal tax except for additional taxes (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu16964, Feb. 28, 1997). First, the principal tax except for additional tax is 601,224,653 won as mentioned above. Even if the plaintiff's assertion is made, the transfer margin of the real estate of this case based on the actual transaction price is 614,687,544 won (transfer value 91,350,409 - acquisition value 371,324,415 - transfer expense 5,338,450 won). Thus, since the above principal tax does not exceed the above actual transaction price of the plaintiff, the transfer margin of this case cannot be confirmed by the plaintiff's comprehensive transaction price or the real transaction price of this case cannot be confirmed by the plaintiff's comprehensive transaction price.

(4) Judgment on the plaintiff's fourth argument

In a case where the City Mayor corrected the officially announced land price through the procedure of related Acts and subordinate statutes due to a defect in the calculation of the officially announced land price, the head of a tax office may retroactively apply the corrected officially announced land price to the old owner, resulting in a result of retroactive taxation, and cannot be deemed as contrary to the principle of no taxation without the law or contrary to the principle of no taxation without the law (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Nu3582, Apr. 28, 1995). In such a case, the Plaintiff’s fourth assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the disposition of this case is legitimate, so the plaintiff's claim seeking its revocation is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.

December 23, 1997