beta
Text
1. Of the instant lawsuit, the Defendant’s transfer income tax on June 5, 2012 reverted to the Plaintiff on June 5, 2014, KRW 94,952,360.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On February 5, 2009, the Plaintiff is an individual entrepreneur who is engaged in the business of leasing construction machinery and soil works under the trade name of “B,” and entered into a subcontract on the land development pipe construction and construction work (hereinafter “instant construction work”) with Hanto Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Oneto”) that contracted the construction of the neighborhood living facilities of the D class C (hereinafter “C class”).
B. From July 5, 201, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the sale of KRW 405,00,000, out of the construction price in the instant case, on the condition that the Plaintiff would perform development and civil engineering works on July 5, 2011, on the condition that the instant land would be 630,000,000,000, without completing payment in kind for forest E- 2,963 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) owned in the form of C, and without completing the registration of ownership transfer by payment in kind. On February 3, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the sale of the instant land at KRW 630,00,000 on the condition that the instant land would be subject to development and civil engineering works.
After February 22, 2012, the registration of ownership transfer of the instant land from C to C was made.
C. From January 7, 2013 to February 8, 2013, the Defendant conducted a field investigation on the Plaintiff’s transfer income tax, and imposed global income tax of KRW 187,706,00 on the Plaintiff on December 9, 2013, deeming that the transfer of the Plaintiff’s instant land constituted real estate sales business, and imposed global income tax of KRW 187,706,00 on the Plaintiff for the year 2012. Upon filing an objection, the Defendant determined that the transfer margin of the instant land constituted transfer income tax of KRW 179,885,590 (excluding additional tax) on June 5, 2014 and notified the Plaintiff on June 5, 2014.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.
On July 29, 2014, the Plaintiff appealed to the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on December 17, 2014.
[Reasons for Recognition] There is no dispute, Gap 1 to 3, Gap 6, 15 (including virtual numbers), and Eul 1.