The Plaintiff’s assertion based on the premise that the defect in the taxation disposition in this case cannot be seen as significant and obvious is void as a matter of course is without merit.

Even if there were errors in the taxation disposition of this case, it is difficult to conclude that the relevant legal principles are clearly stated and there is no room for dispute over the interpretation thereof. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the defect in the taxation disposition of this case is void as it is significant and apparent is without

Article 97 of the Income Tax Act

2013 Gohap57658 Undue gains

IsaA

Korea

2014.9.30

oly 30, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 149,982,400 won with 5% interest per annum from December 1, 2008 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. This B, following the implementation of the Korea Land Development Project, transferred the land BB-Gu 399-19 in BB-Gu 399-19, which he owned, so that he can be granted the right of re-sale in the Z Housing Site Development Zone at AAA, on February 23, 2006, sold the said right of re-sale to the ParkCC in the amount of KRW 358 million, and the transfer income tax and tax imposed under the seller’s name is borne by the buyer, and the transfer income tax and tax imposed under the seller’s name are paid by the buyer, and the down payment was paid in KRW 30 million from the ParkCC on the date of the contract, and the remainder of KRW 328 million on March 10, 206, respectively.

B.B died on June 2, 2006. On June 2, 2006, the Plaintiff, one of his co-inheritors, was to solely succeed to the housing site of migrants to be supplied from the Korea Land Corporation through an agreement on the division of inherited property with other co-inheritors on June 23, 2006.

C. On January 11, 2007, the Korea Land Corporation entered into a sales contract on March 9, 2007 with the Plaintiff on the block 96-7 square meters in the development project area of the Z site with the Plaintiff on March 9, 2007.

D. On May 31, 2007, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract to the effect that ParkCC succeeds to the Plaintiff’s rights and obligations pursuant to the above sales contract and entered into a sales contract to transfer the said housing site to KRW 121,971,000 between ParkCC and the Plaintiff, and reported and paid KRW 34,875,000 for capital gains from the transfer of the housing site to the head of the OCC on June 19, 2007.

E. On November 3, 2008, the director of the Central District Tax Office deemed that the Plaintiff succeeded to the duty to pay B, and notified the Plaintiff of a decision of correction that imposes capital gains tax of KRW 149,982,400 to be paid late to the Plaintiff on November 3, 2008 by deeming that the amount of KRW 250,000,000,000,000 won deposited in the Plaintiff’s account, including KRW 288,000,000,000,000 as transfer value and gains from transfer. The Plaintiff paid

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the whole pleadings

purport of this chapter

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Commissioner of the National Tax Service calculated capital gains tax on the premise that the transfer income from the transfer of the ownership of the ownership of the ownership of the ownership of the ownership of the ownership of the ownership of the ownership of the ownership of the ownership of the ownership of the ownership of the ownership of the ownership of the ownership of the ownership of the ownership of the ownership of the ownership of the ownership of the ownership of the ownership of the ownership of the ownership of the ownership of the ownership of the ownership of the ownership of the ownership of the ownership of the ownership of the ownership of the ownership of the ownership of the ownership of the ownership of the ownership of the ownership of the ownership of the ownership of the ownership of the ownership of the ownership of the ownership of the ownership of the ownership of the ownership of the ownership of the ownership of the ownership of the ownership of the ownership of the ownership of the ownership of the ownership of the ownership of the ownership of the ownership of the ownership of the ownership of the ownership of the ownership of the ownership of the ownership of the ownership.

B. Determination

(1) For the purpose of becoming an unjust enrichment, a tax payment or a tax collection should be null and void as it has no legal basis at all in substance or in procedure, or as it is significant and apparent that the defect of the tax disposition is concerned. If the defect of the tax disposition is merely revoked, the tax office’s own revocation or revocation by the appeal procedure cannot be deemed as unjust enrichment unless it is revoked by itself (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da2800, Nov. 11, 1994).

On the other hand, in case where the sale contract is concluded based on the right of sale of the resettled housing site and transfer income tax is imposed on the income accrued from the transfer of the right of sale of the resettled housing site itself before the payment is made, the person who first obtained the right of sale of the resettled housing site shall acquire the above right at the time of confirmation and decision of the person subject to the relocation measures (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Nu1707, Sept. 6, 1996; 95Nu618, Aug. 23, 19

As seen earlier, this case’s health division and this BB did not obtain confirmation and decision of the person subject to relocation measures even if they sold the right to purchase the migrants’s housing site to ParkCC and received all the purchase price and died. Accordingly, this case’s taxation is deemed to have been made after the transfer income was made to the B, and even if there was an error in the taxation imposed on the Plaintiff, the heir, by calculating the transfer income tax, and imposing the transfer income tax on the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff completed the implementation in accordance with the sales contract concluded by the predecessor, who was granted the right to purchase the migrants’s housing site as the heir. In such factual relations, it is difficult to conclude that there is no room to dispute over the interpretation of Article 94(1)2(a) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9270 of Dec. 26, 2008).

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion based on the premise that the defect in the taxation disposition of this case is significant and apparent is null and void as a matter of course is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.