It is reasonable to impose heavy taxation on the land in consideration of the unregistered transferred property.

The plaintiff's assertion is without merit, since the plaintiff acquired the issue land which is farmland and used it for other illegal purposes, and it is difficult to regard the issue land as an asset for which registration is impossible by the provisions of law, etc.

Article 88 (Definition of Transfer) of Income Tax Act

2013Gudan268 Other (Revocation of Disposition of Tax Imposition)

OraA

BB Director of the Tax Office

July 8, 2013

August 19, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On February 7, 2012, the Defendant revoked the imposition of capital gains tax by the Korea OOOOO on the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

"A. The plaintiff, around July 8, 200, acquired 358-1 m2 m2, 502 m2, 352-4, 352-4, 496 m2 (hereinafter referred to as "the pertinent land") and the purchase price for the instant land as a total of purchase price for the instant land, but registered the transfer of ownership only with respect to the instant connected land, and did not complete the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant land. (b) The instant land was expropriated in the Korea Land and Housing Corporation on July 8, 2008, and the plaintiff received OOO as compensation for expropriation.

C. On February 7, 2012, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff acquired the instant land and transferred it without registering; and (b) rendered a disposition imposing OOOOO on the Plaintiff on February 7, 2012 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff filed a tax appeal against the instant disposition, but was dismissed on November 7, 2012, and filed an administrative appeal, but was dismissed on January 2, 2013.

[Ground of Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1, 4, and Eul evidence 1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) In full view of the fact that the Plaintiff: (a) operated plastic withdrawal plant in OO-gu O-dong; (b) purchased the instant land and adjacent land; (c) purchased the instant land by promising the Plaintiff to resolve the problem of unlawful change in the form and quality of the instant land and to transfer the registration thereof; and (d) did not transfer the instant land to the Plaintiff for the purpose of tax avoidance or resale gains; and (c) the instant disposition that applied the high-rate transfer income tax rate by determining it as unregistered transferred assets, is unlawful.

(2) The instant land was designated as a land transaction permission area from November 20, 2002 to January 30, 2012, and the sales contract between the Plaintiff and thisCC was converted into a conclusive invalidation on July 8, 2008 where the said land was expropriated. Accordingly, the instant land was likely to be a sales contract between the Korea Land and Housing Corporation and thisCC, and the Plaintiff, and the Korea Land and Housing Corporation, and the instant disposition was unlawful on a different premise.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

(1) The purport that the capital gains tax is levied on unregistered transferred assets is that a person who acquired assets transfers them without registering their acquisition at the time of transfer, and evades taxes, such as capital gains tax, and acquisition tax, or restrains and prevents real estate speculation, etc. in pre-sale transactions without paying transfer margin only, etc. Therefore, in the acquisition of the assets at the beginning, it is recognized that the transferor has no purpose of speculation, such as tax avoidance purpose through unregistered transfer of assets, acquisition of resale gains, etc., and that it is harsh to enforce the transferor on the responsibility of failing to register the acquisition of the assets at the time of transfer to the transferor, and in other cases, in extenuating circumstances, it is excluded from the transferred assets subject to capital gains tax (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Nu8020, Apr. 11, 1995).

In light of the following facts, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the above circumstances were established solely on the plaintiff's ground, the plaintiff's assertion alone, and there is no dispute between the parties, or considering the overall purport of arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and Eul evidence No. 3, the plaintiff acquired the land category of the above land since the purchase of the land in this case was made of farmland or illegal changes in the form and quality as factory site, and the plaintiff used the land for more than 11 years from the acquisition of the land in this case without restoring or changing land category to its original state or land category, and the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9897 of Dec. 31, 2009) and Article 104 (3) proviso of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act and Article 168 subparagraph 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, "it is impossible to register the acquisition of the assets at the time of transfer pursuant to the provisions of law, and it is generally impossible to register the acquisition of the land in this case to the extent that it does not fall under 10.

(2) If the date of the conclusion of the sale contract for the land located within the area subject to the regulation of land transaction permission under the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory is designated and publicly announced as a regulation area under the same Act, it is unnecessary to obtain permission from the competent authority for the sale contract, and the buyer has made the procedure for the transfer registration under the name of the buyer after the designation and

It is not necessarily required (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da41456, Mar. 25, 2010).

The Plaintiff’s assertion to the effect that, at the time of entering into a sales contract with thisCC, the land was designated and publicly announced as a land transaction permission regulation area, as there is no dispute between the parties, the said sales contract was effective from the beginning without obtaining permission from the competent authorities. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion to the effect that the situation of the dynamic invalidation of the said sales contract was final and conclusive due to the expropriation of the instant land, is without merit.

(3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit and the instant disposition is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.