Appropriateness of imposition of additional income tax

It is unreasonable in terms of social norms to expect taxpayers to report and pay capital gains tax based on the officially assessed individual land price corrected after the transfer. Therefore, the imposition of additional tax is illegal.

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

1. The part of the disposition imposing transfer income tax 397,377,360 won against the plaintiff on August 16, 1992 exceeding 332,39,228 won is revoked. 2. The remaining claims of the plaintiff are dismissed. 3. 6. The costs of the lawsuit are divided into six parts, and one of them is the defendant's and the remainder is the plaintiff's each.

1. Details of the imposition;

On June 28, 1991, the Plaintiff transferred real estate recorded in the attached list, including 921 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the “land of this case”) from ○○○○○○○○○ Dong, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and 921 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the “instant land”) on August 30, 199, based on the officially assessed individual land price of this case as determined and publicly announced on August 30, 199 as the standard (hereinafter referred to as the “final announced individual land price”) and paid transfer margin on July 31, 199; Defendant (the first imposition disposition of this case was conducted by the head of the tax office on March 1, 1993; the first imposition disposition of this case was conducted under the jurisdiction of the Defendant on March 1, 199; Defendant (hereinafter the Defendant is deemed to have been made by the Defendant on July 1, 191, with the officially announced individual land price of this case as 40,00/1000 square meters of land.

2. Whether the disposition of imposition is lawful.

A. The parties' assertion

With regard to the plaintiff's assertion that the disposition of this case is lawful, the plaintiff's transfer value refers to the standard market price at the time of transfer of the relevant property or the actual transaction price at the time of the transfer of the relevant property in calculating the transfer income amount. The officially assessed individual land price as of January 1, 1990 was corrected on July 1, 1991 after the date of transfer (the date of June 28, 1991). In calculating the transfer income of this case, the defendant's revised officially assessed individual land price after the transfer date without the above publicly announced individual land price (the date of January 1, 1990) was applied retroactively to the time of transfer without any legal basis, and thus, it is unlawful as it is against the law that the government applied the officially announced individual land price as of January 1, 1990 to the time of transfer of this case, and thus, it is unreasonable to expect the plaintiff to make a return of the transfer income tax due to the announcement of the officially announced individual land price as of June 28, 1991.

B. Determination

(1) First, we examine the Plaintiff’s first proposal.

In light of the relevant provisions of Article 60 of the Income Tax Act and Article 115 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the head of Si/Gun/Gu may correct the land price for individual lots calculated on the basis of the officially announced land price in accordance with Article 10 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act. Article 115 (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that if the land price is acquired or transferred before a new standard market price is publicly notified, it shall be based on the immediately preceding standard market price. Article 2-3 of the Joint Guidelines for Land Price Investigation (the Prime Minister Directive No. 241 of Apr. 11, 1990) provides that the head of Si/Gun/Gu may correct the land price after deliberation by the local land appraisal committee if there is an obvious error such as error in land characteristics, miscalculation, and clerical error.

Meanwhile, in full view of the purport of pleading in Gap 3, 12, 3, 3, 300 each entry, 1,2 u, 4, 300, the plaintiff acquired the land of this case on October 21, 1987 and transferred it to ○○ Petroleum Co., Ltd. on June 28, 1991, and made a return on the profits accruing from the transfer of land by applying the initial land price on July 31, 1991. The original land price as of January 1, 1990 was 470,000/ square meters of the land of this case, but 00 .00 . 1,000 . 1, 1991, 1990 . 1,000 . 9,000 . 1,000 . 9,000 . 1,000 . 1, 1996. 1, 1996.

(2) Next, we examine the plaintiff's second proposal.

Under the Income Tax Act, the penalty tax is a kind of administrative punishment, which is imposed when a taxpayer neglects his/her duty to file a return of tax base in good faith to ensure the proper imposition of tax, and it is unreasonable for him/her to be aware of such duty. If there is a circumstance that a taxpayer can reasonably give notice of his/her duty, or there is a circumstance that it is unreasonable for him/her to expect the performance of his/her duty to do so, it cannot be imposed if there is any justifiable reason that cannot be caused by his/her failure to perform his/her duty. (See Supreme Court Decision 92Nu2936, 2943, Oct. 23, 1992) As seen above, since it is unreasonable for the Plaintiff to file a return of tax base in good faith and to fulfill his/her duty to file a return of tax base in order to ensure the proper imposition of tax, it shall not be imposed on the Plaintiff, who is not obligated to file a return of transfer income tax on June 28, 191, which shall be subject to the imposition of the transfer income tax on the land.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim for this case is unlawful, since the Plaintiff’s claim for this case is justified within the scope of seeking cancellation of the transfer income tax of the above additional tax, and the remainder is dismissed as it is without merit, by applying Article 8(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, Articles 89 and 92 of the Civil Procedure Act as to the burden of litigation costs by applying Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act to Article 89 and Article 92 of the Civil Procedure Act.