Suwon District Court-2013-Gu Group-10162 ( November 15, 2013)

Cho Jae-2012-Jung-3798 ( October 29, 2012)

The facts, such as the details of payment of witnesses and sales proceeds, are verified, and the plaintiff's assertion is credibility.

The disposition of this case that did not recognize the acquisition value as necessary expenses in full view of the guidelines for business operations of farming scale in the Korea Agricultural Corporation and the seller's testimony and sales price payment.

Article 88 of the Income Tax Act

2013Nu53860 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax, etc.

DogA

CC director of the tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2013Gudan10162 Decided November 15, 2013

September 17, 2014

October 22, 2014

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 159,380,320 against the Plaintiff on January 1, 2012 shall be revoked.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. As to the 14,851.8m2, 1433m2, 15,242.9m2, 1435 m2, 1435 m2, 14,674m2 (hereinafter referred to as the "1m2 of the above land") in Seosan-si, in which KimA had originally owned, the name was changed to the Korea Agricultural & Rural Community Corporation before changing the name on November 23, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the "Korea Agricultural and Rural Community Corporation", and the name was changed to the "Korea Agricultural and Rural Community Corporation as of December 29, 2008" as of December 29, 2008, and each transfer registration was made in the future of the Plaintiff on December 3, 2004.

B. Also, the answer 14,504.2 square meters of the above AAri 1429, which was originally owned by KimA, and the answer 1430 square meters of the same Ri

With respect to the land of this case and the land of this case 14,589.2 square meters, 14,357.6 square meters in the same Ri 14,357.6 square meters in the same Ri, and 14,553 square meters in the same Ri 1434 square meters (hereinafter referred to as "the land of this case", and "each land of this case" was referred to as "the land of this case in the case where the land of this case and the land of this case 2" in March 8, 2005.

C. On June 3, 2008, the Plaintiff: (a) acquired and owned each of the instant lands; (b) transferred 1,243,500,000 won to Pacific; (c) accordingly, on May 31, 2010, upon filing a tax base return on transfer income to the Defendant; (d) claimed that the Plaintiff acquired each of the instant lands from KimA in KRW 1,056,90,000; and (e) reported the actual transaction price at the time of the acquisition of each of the instant lands as at the time of the transfer as at KRW 1,243,50,000, respectively.

D. However, on January 1, 2012, the Defendant recognized that the Plaintiff acquired each of the instant lands in KRW 755,680,000 from the Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation, a prior owner on the register, and subsequently notified the Plaintiff of KRW 159,380,320 of the capital gains tax reverted to year 2008 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. On July 17, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant disposition, and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on July 17, 2012, but the claim was dismissed on October 29, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence 1, 3, 4 and Eul evidence 1 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff purchased each of the land of this case from KimA to KRW 1,056,90,00 ( KRW 457,300,000 in the land of this case + KRW 59,600 in the land of this case + KRW 59,600 in the land of this case) or not purchased KRW 755,680,00 in the purchase price from the Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation. However, in order to receive the farmland purchase fund from the Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation, the plaintiff, whose purchase price was insufficient, transferred from KimA to the Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation in accordance with the former Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation and Farmland Management Fund Act to KRW 1,05,00 in the form of 70,00 in the purchase price of each contract, and the purchase price of the land of this case to KRW 1,308,490,00 in the form of 50,000 in the purchase price of the land of this case, KRW 306,005 in the form and practice price.

B. Relevant statutes

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

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) Preparation of a sales contract on each of the instant land between the Plaintiff and KimA

On November 29, 2004, the Plaintiff drafted a sales contract with a purport to purchase the instant land No. 1 from KimA in KRW 457,300,000. On March 18, 2005, the Plaintiff drafted a sales contract with a purport to purchase the instant land No. 2 in KRW 599,600,000 from KimA. Accordingly, the total sum of the sales price of each of the instant land is KRW 1,056,90,000.

2) On November 23, 2004, KimA entered into a sales contract with the Plaintiff and the Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation to transfer the ownership of the land of this case on November 16, 2004. On November 23, 2004, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation to receive a total of KRW 277,641,000 for the land of this case from the Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation to receive a loan (loan). On November 29, 2004, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation to purchase KRW 308,490,00 for the land of this case from the Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation and completed the registration of the ownership transfer under the Plaintiff’s name on December 3, 2004.

B) On March 8, 2005, KimA had a signature and seal on March 2, 2005 with respect to the land of this case to the Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation on March 2, 2005 under the name of the president of the place of origin of the Korean Real Estate Trust Co., Ltd.

On March 18, 2005, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation to receive a total of KRW 402,471,000 with respect to the land No. 2 of this case. On the same day, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation to purchase the land No. 2 of this case in KRW 447,190,000, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the Plaintiff’s name on March 25, 2005.

3) Main contents of the Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation’s farming size project

A) The Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation has implemented a farmland trading project that intends to expand the scale of farming of a person to be promoted as a professional farmer in consideration of the characteristics of agriculture by region. The Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation has implemented a farmland trading project to purchase farmland owned by non-farmers or farmers who intend to change or retire as prescribed by Article 18 of the former Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation and Farmland Management Fund Act (amended by Act No. 7604, Jul. 21, 2005) and sell it to those who are to be cultivated as a professional farmer to expand the scale of farming.

B) According to the work guidelines for the scale of farming, the Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation purchased farmland from non-farmers, non-agricultural corporations, or farmers wishing to move to farming. When purchasing farmland, the Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation entered into a sales contract after examining whether a person intending to sell farmland transfers management along with the officially announced land price, local price, actual transaction price in neighboring areas, etc., whether the person intending to sell farmland transferred management, whether the farmland is a disguised transaction, such as false and collusion, relationship with the person scheduled to purchase the farmland in question, and whether the same person purchased and sold the purchased farmland. The Korea Agricultural Infrastructure Corporation sold the farmland purchased as above to the person eligible to foster the full-time farming industry, and the person eligible to support the farmland in order to provide support for 90% of the purchase price.

C) However, in the Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation, when a person wishing to sell farmland and a professional farmer wishing to purchase the farmland request the provision of funds (loan) by mutual agreement, the Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation provided the funds with the loans. At that time, the Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation provided the funds with a fixed limit according to the size of the farmland at that time.

D) As seen above, when the Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation grants a loan (loan) to a person who wishes to purchase farmland pursuant to the purchase and sale of farmland between the person who wishes to purchase farmland and the person who wishes to purchase farmland, the Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation shall register the ownership in the name of the Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation in accordance with the procedure of the above farmland sale and transfer of ownership to the person who wishes to purchase farmland. (iii) In this case, the sales contract prepared by the Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation between the person who wishes to purchase farmland and the person who wishes to purchase farmland was entered in the sales contract as the purchase price of the sales contract (hereinafter referred to as the “sale price of the Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation”) by calculating the amount equivalent to 90% of the total purchase price and the amount of the person who wishes to purchase the farmland equivalent to

4) Payment to the Plaintiff KimA

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff paid 301,220,000 won to KimA after completing the registration of ownership transfer of each of the instant land in its name. The Plaintiff failed to pay the said payment to KimA in time, and KimA received payment from the Plaintiff as a substitute for a period of about three years, in addition to cash, he/she received payment from the Plaintiff for a period of about three years.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 13, 15, Eul's evidence Nos. 2, 5, and the first instance court and KimA

2) At this time, the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage equivalent to the amount of support (loan) was completed.

3) Article 18 of the former Korea Rural Community Corporation and Farmland Management Fund (amended by Act No. 9276, Dec. 29, 2008) provides that the Korea Rural Community Corporation purchases farmland and sells it to those who are specialized farmers, etc. or arranges the sale and purchase of the said farmland to provide funds necessary therefor. However, Article 18 of the former Korea Rural Community Corporation and Farmland Management Fund Act appears to be due to the purchase of farmland and the sale of the said farmland to those who are specialized farmers, etc. and the provision of funds necessary therefor.

4) A total of KRW 1,056,90,000 on each of the instant lands and KRW 755,680,000 on the sales contract between the Plaintiff and KimA and the Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation under the said sales contract are the difference between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff and the Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation.

The purpose of the testimony, the testimony of witnesses of the first instance court and the whole of the pleadings

D. Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed based on the facts recognized as above and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff acquired each of the instant lands from KimA in KRW 1,056,90,000,000. Accordingly, the instant disposition that did not recognize KRW 1,056,90,000 as necessary expenses is unlawful.

1) In light of the fact that the above sales contract between the Plaintiff and KimA with respect to each of the instant lands was falsely prepared, no evidence was found to find out, while the first instance court and the first instance court witness KimA sold each of the instant lands in KRW 1,05,443,00, to the Plaintiff at KRW 965,443,000, and at the time when KimA purchased each of the instant lands from the UA and sold it to the Plaintiff in KRW 1,056,90,000, and the Plaintiff testified that the said sales contract was prepared between the Plaintiff at the time, and that KimA received additional payment from the Plaintiff in addition to the amount received from the Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation, the above sales contract between the Plaintiff and KimA is deemed to have

2) As shown in the testimony of the witness of the first instance trial, in a case where an applicant for a farmland purchase and an applicant for a farmland purchase request a provision of farmland purchase funds (loan), the Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation made a registration of ownership transfer from the applicant for a farmland purchase to the applicant for a farmland purchase and made a registration of ownership transfer to the applicant for a farmland purchase again. 5) In this case, the Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation prepared a sales contract stating 90% of the amount to be provided (loan) to the applicant for a farmland purchase, 10% of the amount to be borne by the applicant for a farmland purchase, the sales contract stating the purchase price of the Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation composed of 10% of the amount to be bought

5) Such a disposition seems to be subject to the restriction under Article 18 of the former Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation and Farmland Management Fund Act (amended by Act No. 7604, Jul. 21, 2005) where the Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation and Farmland Management Fund (amended by Act No. 7604

In light of the fact that there were a low number of cases, the Plaintiff acquired each of the instant lands from KimA, but appears to be merely an act of completing the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation to receive a loan (loan) from the Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the actual transaction price for the Plaintiff’s acquisition of each of the instant lands is KRW 1,056,90,000 paid to KimA.

3) In the proceedings of the first instance trial, the Plaintiff received a loan of KRW 100 million from the Suhyup on September 2, 2004 in order to settle the purchase price, and the remainder was paid KRW 200 million as a check received by the Plaintiff’s purchase of other land owned by the Plaintiff on June 21, 2004.), but in the first instance trial, the Plaintiff alleged that the remainder was paid in cash and paid in rice, etc., and the contents of the assertion changed. However, in light of the contents of the Plaintiff’s testimony and its credibility, it appears to be consistent in light of the content of the testimony and testimony of the Plaintiff, regardless of the content of the testimony and testimony of the Plaintiff, in addition to the Plaintiff’s partial settlement of the purchase price in cash from the first instance court to the court of the first instance.

4) The defendant acquired each of the lands of this case from KimA in KRW 1,056,90,000.

In fact, in light of the fact that KimA reported on November 2, 2004 that KimA acquired each of the lands of this case from 683,955,800 won, KimA would have obtained gains on transfer from approximately KRW 372,94,200 on the part of Han, and that KimA would have obtained gains on transfer from approximately KRW 372,94,200 on the part of Han, while there is no special reason to change land prices, it would have been caused by the plaintiff's mistake, taking into account each of the statements in subparagraphs 5 through 10, and the purport of KimA's testimony and all of the arguments.

In light of the fact that KimA was difficult to obtain a short period of transfer margin as above, the testimony of KimA and the plaintiff's assertion are difficult to believe. However, KimA purchased each of the land of this case from 31,443,00 won in the first instance court and the first instance court, but sold to the plaintiff KRW 1,056,90,000 in total amount of KRW 34,000 in the average of KRW 34,000 in the average of KRW 34,000 in each of the land of this case, and at the request of MaA, it testified that the contract was written in the form of 683,95,800 won which is less than the actual sale price between MaA and the others. In light of the circumstances leading up to the sale of each of the land of this case, the testimony or testimony of MaA in the first instance court and the testimony or attitude of Kim.

The above testimony of KimA seems to be reliable. Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is difficult to accept.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be accepted.

Since the conclusion is unfair differently, the plaintiff's appeal is accepted and it is so decided as per Disposition.