Whether it may be deemed a real estate trading business if transferred in installments with a small area.

In light of the circumstances such as the period of possession, size of trading, and other real estate trading frequency, size, mode, profitability, holding period, holding status, etc., the instant transfer act is sufficient to be recognized as being conducted with continuous and repeated intent for profit purposes.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

Supreme Court Decision 95Nu16288 Decided June 27, 1997

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed. 2. Total costs of litigation are borne by the plaintiff.

1. Details of taxation; and

When comprehensively considering the whole purport of the pleadings in the descriptions of Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 3, 12-1, Gap evidence 1, 5, and 6-2, Gap evidence 13-2, Gap evidence 16-1, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 5-9, Eul evidence 13-1, and Eul evidence 13-9, the following facts may be acknowledged, and no other counter-proof exists.

A. On February 13, 1987, the Plaintiff: (a) jointly with Nonparty 1, Nonparty 3, Nonparty 1, Nonparty 7, Nonparty 7, and Nonparty 9, Nonparty 7, and Nonparty 1, Nonparty 3, Nonparty 7, Nonparty 7, and Nonparty 9, Nonparty 7, were to sell Nonparty 9’s land to Nonparty 2, Nonparty 7, Nonparty 7, and Nonparty 9’s 79-2,950 square meters to Nonparty 3, Nonparty 7, Nonparty 7, and to Nonparty 3, Nonparty 7, and to Nonparty 9, respectively, divided into 1,80 square meters of forest land into 79-3,471; and (b) on July 18, 1989, the Plaintiff sold Nonparty 9’s land to Nonparty 2, Nonparty 7, and Nonparty 97, Nonparty 79-3, 79-32,313,79-9, and 79-10,3868,719,7.

B. After that, the above co-sellers, including the Plaintiff, paid capital gains tax of KRW 24,589,104 and KRW 4,917,820 as capital gains tax of KRW 2,563,337 as capital gains tax to be additionally paid to the Plaintiff on July 6, 1990, and KRW 559,274 as capital gains tax of KRW 2,563,337 as income tax to be additionally paid to the Plaintiff around September 6, 1990. At that time, the Plaintiff paid such additional capital gains tax and defense tax of KRW 559,274 as above.

(2) Under Article 82 of the former Income Tax Act, the Defendant shall investigate the actual transaction value for each of the instant lands pursuant to Articles 92 and 94, and shall calculate the total purchase value of 35,00 won per 78,75,700 won per 70,79,79,700 won per 70,000 won per 70,000 won, which is confirmed by the Plaintiff’s 70,000 won per 9,000 won per 70,000 won for 70,000 won for 70,000 won for 75,000 won for 70,000 won for 70,000 won for 70,000 won for 70,000 won for 75,00 won for 9,00 won for 70,000 won for 79,00 won for 70,000 won for 79,00 won for 7,00 won for 1.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. First, the Plaintiff’s transfer of the entire land of this case is limited to the transfer of non-party Kim ○ and Kim ○, a co-owned share of which is not actively developed for the purpose of prompt disposal to move to a foreign country, and is merely divided into a small size. The Plaintiff himself/herself has not continuously and repeatedly transferred real estate for profit as a person engaged in a timber household manufacturing business from 1983 to 1983. Furthermore, as above, the Plaintiff merely received 1/2 co-ownership of the land of this case from 00 ○○-dong 296 site for which the above non-party was scheduled to jointly purchase in return for the transfer of co-owned share of each land of this case. Thus, the Plaintiff’s transfer of real estate of this case constitutes a real estate sales business under Article 36 subparag. 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter “Enforcement Decree”), and the Defendant’s disposal of real estate under Article 20(1)8(1)3 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 136581, Dec. 13, 19, 19, 8).

In light of the purport of stipulating real estate sales as one of independent business income under the Income Tax Act, the issue of whether the income from the sale and purchase of real estate constitutes business income or is subject to transfer income tax under the Income Tax Act shall be determined according to the ordinary social norms by considering whether the sale and purchase profit is the purpose of the transaction, the scale and frequency of the transaction, and the degree of continuity and repetition of the business activity (see Supreme Court Decision 97Nu10192, Oct. 24, 1997, etc.). Accordingly, Article 1(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act is merely an example of the cases where the feasibility that can be seen as real estate sales is recognized, and Article 2-4-8.20(1)1 of the Income Tax Act also provides the same purport.

나아가 위와 같은 기준에 의하여 이 사건 토지 지분의 양도행위가 부동산매매업에 해당하는지에 관하여 보건대, 앞서 든 증거들과 갑제4, 8호증의 1,2, 갑제13호증의 1, 갑제22호증의 1 내지 9, 갑제23 내지 29호증의 1, 2, 을제 14호증의 1, 2 을제15호증, 을제 16,17호증의 각 1 내지 4, 을제22, 23, 25, 26호증, 을제 24호증의 1 내지 5의 각 기재, 갑제 33호증의 일부 기재, 증인 송○섭의 증언, 김○영의 일부 증언에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 원고는 1983. 1. 1.부터 ○○ ○○구 ○○동 190의 7에서 목재가구제조업을 각 경영하고 있고, 원고와 위 유○기, 김○종, 김○상은 사업상 알게 된 이후 20년이상 친교관계를 유지해오고 있는데, 건축업자인 위 김○종은 1976. 12. 23.에, 건축업자인 위 김○상은 1993. 4. 14.에 각기 해외로 이주한 사실, 원고는 위 유○기, 김○상 및 소외 양○근과 공동으로 1981. 2. 23. ○○시 ○○구 ○○동 106의 대 5,229.4㎡ 및 같은동 107 대 5,116.5㎡를 매수하였다가 1985. 12. 12. 소외 부천시에 학교용지로 매도한 바 있고, 그 후 앞서 본 바와 같이 위 유○기, 김○종 및 김○상과 공동하여 1987. 2. 13. 이 사건 각 토지를 평당 금35,000원씩 도합 금288,750,000원에 취득하였다가 1989. 8월부터 9월까지 사이에 평당 금177,130원 내지 금223,000원에 이를 각 분할하여 매도한 사실, 그 외에도 원고는 위 유○기 및 김○상 등과 공동하여 1986. 12. 5. ○○시 ○○동 산 23 임야 8단 4무보를 매수하여 보유하고 있고, 위 김○상과 공동으로 1987. 2. 13. 같은동 산 92의 2 임야 2,479㎡를 매수하여 보유하다가 같은해 8. 20. 소외 오두식에게 양도하였으며, 1987. 2. 13. 같은동 535 전143평, 538의 2 전 245평 및 538의 5 전 164평을 매수하였다가 같은해 8. 12. 소외 김정달에게 양도하였는데, 1993. 5. 8. 세무조사를 받으면서 서울지방국세청장에게 원고 자신이 이 사건 각 토지를 취득할 무렵 위 김○상 등과 함께 이 사건 각 토지 이외에도 같은 동 산 92의 2 임야 등 12필지를 평당 금35,000원 정도에 취득하였다는 취지의 확인까지 하고 있는 사실(을제14호증의 2, 다만 등기부상으로는 위와 같이 5필지에 대하여만 확인이 되고 있다). 또한 원고는 1987. 10. 16. ○○ ○○구 ○○동 ○○ 소재 연립주택 나의 2동 1층 108호 1세대 건물 및 대지권을, 1988. 5. 17. ○○ ○○구 ○○동 ○○ 대 182㎡의 1/2지분을 각 취득하여 이를 보유하고 있고, 1991. 5. 16. 위 유○기와 공동하여 위 김○상과 김○종이 매수한 ○○시 ○○동 296 대 30,230.7㎡ 중 30230.7분의 661.2 지분을 양도받은 사실, 한편 원고는 1989. 7. 28. 이 사건 각 토지에 관하여 나머지 공유지분권자들과 더불어 그 매수인들과의 사이에 그들이 이 사건 토지의 매수인들에게 해당 토지에 관한 소유권이전등기를 마쳐주기로 하는 제소전 화해를 하여 이에 기한 소유권이전등기가 마쳐지게 된 사실을 각 인정할 수 있고, 이에 반하는 듯한 위 갑제33호증의 일부 기재, 위 증인 김○영의 일부 증언은 각 믿지 아니하며, 달리 위 인정을 뒤집을 만한 증거가 없다.

According to the purport of relevant laws and regulations as seen earlier and the above facts, in light of various circumstances such as the Plaintiff’s holding period, size of sales, transaction recovery, size, mode, profitability, holding period, etc. of the instant land, it is sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff’s act of transfer in this case was conducted by continuous and repeated intent for profit purposes. Accordingly, income therefrom should be viewed as business income under the Income Tax Act. Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s act of transfer in this case was conducted as part of real estate sales, and thus, it is subject to global income tax and the same defense tax. Thus, the disposition in this case for the same reason is lawful and the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

B. The Plaintiff asserts that even if the transfer of each of the instant lands was made as part of real estate sales business, the transfer income tax was determined and imposed according to the standard market price as to the transfer of each of the instant lands around July 6, 1990, and the Plaintiff was also believed to have been paid and terminated. However, the Defendant did not cancel the previous disposition imposing the transfer income tax (the Plaintiff did not receive the notice) and then issued each of the instant dispositions concerning the sale of the same real estate (the Plaintiff did not receive the notice), it is double taxation as well as double taxation, and thus, it is unlawful against the principle of good faith or the principle of good faith.

On the other hand, Article 127 of the former Income Tax Act provides that if an omission or error is found after the tax base and amount of tax are determined, the government shall immediately investigate the tax base and amount of tax and correct them, and in addition, in the ideology of fair taxation or the nature of the State's taxation right, the tax authority may impose transfer income tax by considering the transfer act of real estate as the initial simple transfer act, as in this case, only the transfer act of real estate is considered as the initial simple transfer act, and if it is deemed that the act constitutes real estate sales business after overall determination, a comprehensive income tax may be imposed by changing the items of tax to the previous simple transfer income instead of the former simple transfer income. Thus, on the ground that the Defendant imposed transfer income tax on the transfer act of this case by the Plaintiff, but then considered the sale and purchase as the business income of real estate sales, and then included it in the global income,

In addition, the income amount of a resident under the former Income Tax Act is divided into 1. 1. dividend income, real estate income, business income, earned income and other income on April 4, 200 (Article 4 of the Income Tax Act), income tax shall be calculated separately for global income, amount of transfer income and forest income, and each amount of income shall not be added up if it differs in the order of income deduction or tax base (Article 15, 16, 70 of the Income Tax Act, etc.). 2. 5. 1. 4. 5. 1. 4. 5. 1. 5. 1. 4. 5. 1. 4. 5. 1. 4. 5. 1. 5. 1. 5. 4. 5. 1. 5. 1. 5. 1. 5. 1. 5. 196 . 4. 86. 1. 198

C. The Plaintiff asserts that this case’s disposition based on the unconstitutional law is unlawful since Article 82(1) and (2) of the former Income Tax Act on the calculation of global income tax on a real estate sales businessman is unconstitutional for the following reasons. In other words, the above provision does not clearly stipulate whether the act of transferring a certain real estate at a certain point is subject to capital gains tax or is subject to global income tax on business income of real estate sales business, or is based on the standard market price or whether the sales price should be based on the actual transaction price, and whether the tax base and tax amount should be the on-site investigation method. Furthermore, it is believed that the taxpayer has a duty to pay taxes based on the transfer of real estate and even the tax authority made a tax return based on the determination of the mere imposition of capital gains tax, and it is difficult for the taxpayer to find that the tax office has a duty to pay taxes due to the transfer of real estate, taking into account the various circumstances related to the sale, especially the transaction relations after the sale, etc., and thus, imposing global income tax and additional tax thereon cannot be imposed on the taxpayer even if it is virtually complicated and difficult to estimate.

First of all, Article 82 (1) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4803 of Dec. 2, 1994) provides that "the amount of global income tax for a person who is not the global income from the sale and purchase of land or buildings (hereinafter "land, etc.") shall be the calculated global income tax, whichever is larger," and "the calculated global income tax under Article 70 of the former Income Tax Act shall be the calculated global income tax," and Article 92 (2) provides that "the aggregate of the calculated global income tax amount under subparagraph 1 shall be the calculated global income tax amount under subparagraph 2, and it shall not be the calculated global income tax amount for a real estate sales businessman who has any global income other than the business income from the sale and purchase of land, etc., which shall be calculated based on the aggregate of the calculated global income tax amount under Article 70 of the following subparagraphs shall be the calculated global income tax amount, because it is not clear whether the above tax amount is the calculated global income tax amount for a real estate sales businessman's global income tax base."

D. The plaintiff asserts that the provisions of Article 67 of the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act (wholly amended by Ordinance of the Prime Minister No. 505 of May 3, 1995) stipulate the matters to be prescribed by the law, and thus, the provision of this case is invalid, and the disposition of this case based on the provision of the above invalidation is unlawful. However, the above provision of the Enforcement Rule is clearly stated in the formula for calculating global income tax under Article 82 (1) and (2) of the former Income Tax Act as the mother corporation, and it is in accordance with the provisions of the mother law faithfully. Thus, the above provision is inconsistent with the mother law or cannot be deemed null and void because it violates the mother law (see Supreme Court Decisions 95Nu17519, Apr. 12, 1996; 84Nu119, Nov. 12, 1985). The plaintiff's above assertion is groundless.

E. Furthermore, in calculating the profit margin on each land of this case, the plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful since the defendant calculated the real sale price of the entire land based on the amount confirmed by some buyers, since the sale price cannot be confirmed by the actual transaction price.

"살피건대, 구 소득세법 제92조 제1항 은부동산매매업자의 토지등 매매차익은 그 매매가액에서 제45조 의 규정에 의한 필요경비를 공제한 금액으로 한다'고 규정하고, 제94조 제1항 은부동산매매업자가 토지등 매매차익예정신고 또는 토지등 매매차익예정신고자진납부를 하지 아니하였거나 그 신고한 매매차익이나 납부한 세액에 탈루 또는 오류가 있는 때에는 정부는 즉시 그 매매차익 또는 세액을 결정하거나 시정하고 대통령령이 정하는 바에 의하여 당해 부동산매매업자에게 통지하여야 한다'고 규정하였고, 구 시행령 제142조 제1항 은 법 제94조 의 규정에 의한 토지등 매매차익과 세액의 결정은 다음 각호에 의한다'고 하면서, 그 제1호에부동산매매업자가 매매차익 예정신고시 제출한 증빙서류 또는 비치・기장한 장부와 증빙서류에 의하여 제141조 의 규정에 의한 토지등 매매차익을 계산할 수 있을 때에는 그에 의하여 조사・결정한다'고 규정하며, 그 제2호는 제169조 제1항 각호 에 해당하는 경우에는 토지등 매매차익은 제141조 의 규정에 불구하고 매매가액에 소득표준율을 곱하여 계산한 금액으로 한다'고 규정하고, 제2항은제1항 제2호에서 매도한 토지의 실지거래가액을 확인할 수 있는 경우에는 실지거래가액을 매매가액으로 하고, 실지거래가액을 확인할 수 없는 경우에는 제115조 에 규정한 기준시가를 매매가액으로 한다'고 규정하였다. 위 각 규정에 비추어 보면, 위 법 제94조 제1항 에 의하여 정부가 매매차익 또는 세액을 결정하는 경우에는 실지조사의 방법에 의하여 밝혀진 실지거래가액에 의하여 결정하는 것이라고 할 것인바( 대법원 1997. 7. 8. 선고 95누9778 판결 참조), 앞서 본 바와 같이 비록 피고는 이 사건 각 토지의 모든 매수인으로부터 그 매매가격을 조사하지는 아니하였다고 하더라도, 분할된 이 사건 각 토지별로 각 그 매수인 또는 공동매수인의 1인으로부터 그 매수 토지의 평당 매매가액을 확인받아 이를 기초로 각 필지별 매매가액과 총 매매가액을 산정한 다음 이를 실지거래가액으로 삼았던 것이므로, 이 사건 각 토지의 매매는 그 실지거래가액이 확인된 경우에 해당한다고 할 것이어서, 실지거래가액이 확인되지 아니하였음을 전제로 기준시가에 의하여 매매차익 및 세액을 결정하여야 한다는 원고의 위 주장도 이유없다.",바. 원고는, 실제로 공동매수인중 위 김○종, 김○상이 원고의 사전 동의도 없이 이 사건 각 토지를 분할 매도한 뒤 그 매도대금중 원고 및 위 유○기의 지분상당액을 지급하지 아니하다가 원고 및 위 유○기가 항의하자 그 지분상당액의 지급에 갈음하여 위 ○○시 ○○동 토지를 원고 및 위 유○기에게 이전하였던 것이므로, 원고의 이 사건 각 토지 지분의 매도가액은 원고의 위 ○○동 토지 지분에 대한 취득가액에 상당하는 금70,000,000원으로 보아야 하며, 그렇지 않다고 하더라도 위 ○○동 토지 취득비용은 이 사건 각 토지 매도가액에서 필요경비로 공제하여야 하는데도, 이를 간과한 이 사건 처분은 위법하다고 주장한다.

On May 16, 191, the Plaintiff acquired 61.2/7/30 of the above ○○○○○○ and Kim Jong-dong's 296 large 30,230.7 square meters of the above ○○○○○○○○○ and Kim Jong-dong purchased on May 16, 1991. However, among the joint buyers who purchased the pertinent land together with the Plaintiff, the above ○○○ and Kim Jong-dong's 300.7 square meters of the purchase price of each of the above ○○○○○○○○ was difficult to pay an amount equivalent to the above ○○○○'s share out of the sale price of each of the above land without the Plaintiff's prior consent, and the above ○○○○○ and the above 00.3 billion won of the purchase price of each of the above ○○○○○○ and the above 000.3 billion won of the purchase price of each of the above lands should be considered to have been in line with the Plaintiff's claim.

G. The plaintiff alleged that the disposition of this case, which was limited to the sale of each of the lands of this case, should be divided into two categories and calculated separately from the acquisition to the transfer. However, since each of the lands of this case was sold in 1989, the business income resulting therefrom belongs to the same year. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion is groundless.

H. The Plaintiff already paid the transfer income tax according to the standard market price with respect to the sale of each land of this case. Since the Defendant received it without objection, in the event that the sale is deemed a part of real estate sales business and imposes a tax by changing the tax item as global income tax from the transfer income tax, the Plaintiff’s disposition added it to the disposition of this case is unlawful. However, since the Plaintiff engaged in real estate sales business, the income accrued from the sale of each land of this case is not subject to the transfer income tax, but subject to the global income tax as business income, and it is subject to the global income tax. Although the Plaintiff imposed the transfer income tax according to the initial report of the Plaintiff, and even if it was imposed by changing the tax item as global income tax as global income tax by correcting the error, the Plaintiff is entitled to the imposition of additional tax with respect to the global income tax, so long as the Plaintiff did not have paid it as global income tax and paid it as global income tax

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking revocation on the premise that the disposition of this case is unlawful is dismissed as all of the grounds for appeal, and the total costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost.