fraud and other unlawful acts are subject to the exclusion period of 10 years.

The exclusion period of 10 years is applicable to the act of submitting a false sales contract and a written confirmation of the fact of real estate transactions.

Period for exclusion of imposition of national taxes under Article 26-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Daejeon District Court 2014Gudan100940

OO

O Head of tax office

on October 03, 2015

on 17 July 2015

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On O.O.O. 199, the Plaintiff’s attached AA entered into a contract with the seller of the Korea Land Corporation for purchase of OO-dong O-dong O-type O-type O-type O-use (hereinafter “instant land”) at KRW 00,00 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

B. The plaintiff, AA, and the Korea Land Corporation entered into a contract with the plaintiff to succeed all of the rights and obligations of AA under the contract of this case (hereinafter "the contract of this case") on O.O.O.O.

was made.

C. The Plaintiff acquired the instant land from O.O.O. on 2004, and transferred it to O.O. BB on 2004.

D. The Plaintiff voluntarily paid the amount of capital gains tax calculated by using the standard market price of the instant land as the transfer value, and the preliminary return and payment by the OOO members.

E. In the course of the tax investigation conducted by a regional tax office in 2007, the Plaintiff submitted a sales contract and a certificate of actual transaction of real estate held by OOO on the instant land prepared in the name of the Plaintiff and BB (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the instant documents”), which was written in the form of KRW 00,000,000,0000,000,000 won for the instant land (the contract date 2004,000,0000,000 won for the remainder of the contract date).

F. As the director of the regional tax office notifies the head of the O.O.O. office of taxation data, the director of the O.O. shall regard the transfer value of the instant land against the Plaintiff as O0,000 won and notified the Plaintiff of the deduction of the transfer income tax (including additional tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) for the year 2004.

G. B transferred the instant land to the tax authority on February 25, 2013, and thereafter reported the acquisition value to the tax authority as KRW 00,000,000, and submitted a copy of the current sales contract, receipt, and the cashier’s checks paid as the purchase price O0,000 won.

H. After undergoing a tax investigation, the Defendant: (a) deemed the transfer value of the instant land to the Plaintiff as KRW O0,000; (b) deemed the transfer value of the instant land as KRW O0,000; and (c) issued a notice of deduction of KRW O00 of the transfer income tax for the year 2004 (hereinafter

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 3, 5 evidence, Eul 9-1 to 5, Eul 1, Eul 2-1, 2, Eul 3, 4, 6 evidence, Eul 7-1 and 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff did not have been involved in the acquisition and sale of the instant land as it was in military service, and the Plaintiff knew that the Plaintiff acquired “O.O.O., 199,” which was the date of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, and reported the tax base of transfer income to the tax authority by deeming the acquisition value as the transfer value of the instant land. Since the transfer of the instant land 1 year has passed after its acquisition, it does not constitute a short-term transfer.

2) In conducting a tax investigation in 2007, the OO regional tax office presented to the Plaintiff that the transfer of the instant land constitutes a short-term transfer, and that the actual transaction price is subject to O0,000 won. The Plaintiff prepared the instant documents retroactively according to the investigation amount of the OO0,000 won of the OO regional tax office and submitted them to the public official in charge. The Plaintiff submitted the instant documents when the OO regional tax office conducts a tax investigation, not actively submitted, but did not commit fraud or other unlawful acts. Accordingly, the exclusion period of 5 years should be applied to the Plaintiff.

3) Since the Defendant conducted a secondary tax investigation after the completion of a tax investigation by an OO regional tax office, it constitutes a double tax investigation. Despite the fact that the OO regional tax office could also investigate the purchase price of the instant land from BB in 2004 at the time of conducting a tax investigation, it is too harsh to the Plaintiff to conduct the instant disposition for more than seven years, which goes against the principle of fair taxation.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) As seen earlier, the Plaintiff acquired O.O. on 2004 and transferred the instant land to O.O. on 2004.O., and accordingly, the transfer value of the instant land pursuant to Article 96(1)4 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7006 of Dec. 30, 2003 and enforced January 1, 2004) shall be based on the actual transaction value.

2) As seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s submission of this case’s documents different from the facts in the course of a tax investigation by an OO regional tax office constitutes fraudulent means or other active acts that make it impossible or considerably difficult to impose and collect taxes, and thus, the exclusion period of ten years under Article 26-2(1)1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8139 of Dec. 30, 2006; hereinafter “former Framework Act on National Taxes”) applies.

- 5-

3) According to Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 9-2, the head of the O regional tax office and the defendant may recognize the fact that they conducted a duplicate tax investigation on the transfer income tax for the year 2004 for the plaintiff's 204. However, at the time of the tax investigation in 2007 of the OO regional tax office, the transfer value of the land of this case was recognized as KRW 00,000 and completed the investigation. BB transferred the land of this case to the tax office after the transfer of the land of this case, submitted a copy of the actual sales contract, receipts, and cash checks paid as KRW 00,000,000 to the tax office after the transfer of the land of this case, and thus, the defendant again conducted a tax investigation. Thus, the defendant's re-audit is allowed because there is clear evidence to acknowledge the suspicion of tax evasion" under Article 81-3 (2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, and the disposition of this case is too harsh to the plaintiff and thus is not contrary to the principle of fair taxation.

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

3. Conclusion

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