It is difficult to recognize that a transaction is made separately with the purchase price of land impeding the outside of the purchase price.

In light of the fact that a sales contract was entered into several times, and each sales contract was not entered as a subject of sale or entered only as an object of removal of obstacles, it is difficult to recognize that a sales contract was entered into only as an object of land and that a sales contract was actually entered into for reporting transfer income tax, and that

Article 96 of the Income Tax Act

2011Guhap486 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

IsaA

Chuncheon Director of the Tax Office

March 23, 2012

April 20, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The imposition of capital gains tax of 000 won for the year 2008 against the Plaintiff on December 3, 2009 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 21, 1979, the Plaintiff acquired the entire share of 00-0 forest land of 00,736 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) in Chuncheon-si, O0-30,000, and on September 11, 2008, the Plaintiff transferred the instant land to DC Loan Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “DDC Loan”) that was promoting housing development projects in the Japanese zone of the instant land according to the sales contract on August 11, 2008, and reported the transfer value of KRW 00,000, and the transfer value of KRW 00,000,000, and paid the transfer income tax of KRW 00 for the year 2008.

B. From September 7, 2009 to September 25, 2009, the Defendant: (a) investigated the Plaintiff’s transfer income tax, as seen above, deemed the sales contract reported by the Plaintiff as a false contract; and (b) on December 3, 2009, rendered a disposition to correct the transfer value of the instant land as KRW 00,000, the acquisition value as KRW 00,000, and the transfer margin as KRW 00,000, and impose the transfer income tax for the year 2008 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Tax Tribunal on April 15, 2010 upon filing an objection on February 25, 2010, but was dismissed on December 13, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 5, Gap evidence 6-1, 2, Eul evidence 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Notwithstanding the fact that the purchase price of the instant land is KRW 000,000 among the purchase price of the sales contract concluded between the Plaintiff and DDC Borrowing, and the remaining KRW 000 is an obstacle to fruit trees, etc. on the ground of the instant land (hereinafter “in the instant obstacle”), it is unlawful that the Defendant calculated the transfer income tax including the purchase price of the instant obstacle in the purchase price of the instant land. The Defendant’s calculation of the transfer income tax including the sale price of the instant obstacle in the purchase price of the instant land is unlawful, and it is against the principle of no taxation without any basis to

2) DDR punishment argues that the sales contract of March 29, 2007 between the Plaintiff and DDR was null and void according to the sales contract of August 11, 2008, which was concluded between the Parties to reduce the price of the obstacles to the instant case to KRW 000,000, and that it was decided to recommend settlement with the Chuncheon District Court 201Kahap000, which filed a lawsuit for confirmation of the existence of the obligation owed by DDR 2000, but the decision of recommending settlement was finalized. Accordingly, the transfer value of the instant land was determined to KRW 00,00, and the transfer value of the obstacles to the instant land was determined to KRW 00,00, respectively. Accordingly, the disposition of the instant case on a different premise is unlawful.

3) Of the price actually received by the Plaintiff, KRW 000, which was paid as the down payment of the sales contract dated February 15, 2006 as the down payment, would be taxed as “other income” as a cancellation contract amount confiscated as a result of nonperformance of the obligation to pay the balance. Thus, the instant disposition that included it in the transfer value of the instant land is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

(c) basic facts;

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence 4-1 through 4, Gap evidence 6-1, 2, 12, 13, Eul evidence 2-1 through 4, and Eul evidence 4, the fact that the sales contract for the land of this case was concluded between the plaintiff and Eul (hereinafter referred to as "the sales contract of this case"), the plaintiff was 00 won on August 5, 2005, 100 won on February 10, 206, 17, 100 won on February 17, 2006, 200 won on April 3, 2007, and 00 won on September 11, 2008, and the fact that the plaintiff extended the registration of ownership transfer to the plaintiff and the plaintiff on the land of this case for reasons of the sale and purchase contract of this case from 0,000 won on September 28, 208, 208.

D. Determination

1) As to the assertion of the above A-A-1

In full view of the aforementioned evidence, ① the sales contract of this case dated August 1, 2005 and the sales contract of this case dated April 3, 2007 are not indicated as the object of sale. Rather, it is stated that “it is necessary to destroy or remove all other obstacles (such as unregistered buildings, graves, farming crops, underground facilities)” and ② the sales contract of this case was divided into two different parts, and the sales contract of this case was executed on February 15, 2007 and its price was calculated as obstacles to the land. However, it is difficult to view that the sale contract of this case was executed as the object of sale and purchase, and that there is no basis for calculating the value of the purchase and sale contract of this case, and that there is no difference between the sale and sale contract of this case 0,000 won and the sale and sale contract of this case which was executed for 00,000 won, and that there is no difference between the sale and sale contract of this case and the sale and sale contract of this case.

2) As to the argument of the above A-2

In full view of the evidence as mentioned above and evidence No. 8, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of existence of obligation against the plaintiff on March 2, 201, which was immediately before the lawsuit of this case was filed on March 11, 2011, that the purchase price does not exist in excess of 00 won, and DDR and the plaintiff submitted only a complaint and reply on June 28, 201 without any specific public notice, it is difficult to recognize the fact that the settlement recommendation was sent to the plaintiff on June 28, 201 that the purchase price obligations under the sales contract of this case were remaining in excess of KRW 00,000,000, and that it was confirmed around that time. The plaintiff's allegation that the sale contract of this case was legitimate and conclusive on June 28, 201, which affected the plaintiff's claim that the sale price of this case was 00,000 won or more (see Supreme Court Decision 200,000 won after the conclusion of the sale price of this case.)

3) As to the assertion of the above A-3

According to the above facts, the contract of this case between the plaintiff and DCC loan was changed only to some terms and conditions of the contract, such as the purchase price, and it is difficult to view that the contract was terminated on August 1, 2005 or that the contract was confiscated by the plaintiff. Thus, the disposition of this case by the defendant which did not consider it is legitimate, and the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.