Baminm Cr. Cr. Cr. C.P. (Attorney Sung-Gyeong, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Deputy director of the tax office

January 13, 1983

The imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 6,280,208 against the plaintiff as of December 17, 1981 and the imposition of KRW 2,512,083 against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

According to the above-mentioned preliminary return of KRW 6,28,00 for the Plaintiff as of December 17, 1981, and KRW 2,512,08 for the above-mentioned tax base return of KRW 97,00 for the above-mentioned tax base return of KRW 97,00 for KRW 20,000 for the above-mentioned tax base return of KRW 97,00 for KRW 97,00 for the above-mentioned tax base return of KRW 97,00 for the above-mentioned tax base return of KRW 97,00 for KRW 17,00 for the above-mentioned tax base return of KRW 97,00 for the above-mentioned tax base return of KRW 97,00 for the above-mentioned tax base return of KRW 97,00 for the above-mentioned tax base return of KRW 97,00 for the above-mentioned tax base return of KRW 30,000 for the above-mentioned tax base return of KRW 97,304,05,000

In the event that there is no agreement on the payment of intermediate payments from the original date as stated in the Plaintiff’s above contract for the sale of forest land, the transfer date shall be deemed December 31, 1979, which is the remainder payment date. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s legal return on the transfer of assets from January 21, 1980 shall be subject to the tax credit for the transfer marginal profit by the preliminary return of assets, despite the Plaintiff’s legal return within the fixed period, the Defendant did not deduct it, and the Plaintiff imposed the transfer income tax and the defense tax by adding additional tax for bad faith payment. This is alleged to be an error of law. Thus, under Article 27 of the Income Tax Act, the transfer date of assets shall be the date of receipt or receipt of part of the payment other than the down payment (Paragraph 1), and the payment date shall be deemed to be the cash or valuables of a similar nature other than the down payment date (Paragraph 2) and the transfer date shall be deemed to be the transfer date of the intermediate payment to the head of the competent tax office, and the purport of the transfer contract shall be deemed to be within 30 days.

Therefore, the transfer time of the above forest is December 31, 1979, the remaining payment date of the plaintiff's transfer income tax, and therefore, the plaintiff's transfer profit preliminary return of the assets is a legitimate return made within the prescribed period on January 21, 1980. Therefore, the defendant did not deduct the tax amount to be paid by the preliminary return even though it should have been deducted, and it is illegal that the plaintiff imposed the transfer income tax and the same defense tax in addition to the additional tax for bad faith payment. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for cancellation is justified, and it is decided as per Disposition by applying Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the cost of lawsuit.

January 27, 1983

Judges Yoon Sang-ho (Presiding Judge)