The disposition of this case in which the transfer value is calculated by the actual contract that is not a false double contract is legitimate.

It is reasonable to calculate the value of transfer under the actual contract, and the necessary expenses that the plaintiff does not prove by objective data shall not be recognized.

2014Gudan767 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

Jeon AA 1

The Director of Budget Office

September 19, 2014

October 24, 2014

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant imposed capital gains tax on Plaintiff B on February 1, 2014, and revoked the imposition of capital gains tax on Plaintiff BB on February 7, 2014, respectively.

section 3.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 2, 2004, the ownership transfer registration with respect to 141-15 Dool-ri 141-15 Dool-ri 2,688 square meters was completed in the name of Maddong on August 2, 2004, and on April 29, 2005 (the land was divided after Maddong 141-15, but is hereinafter referred to as '141-15 Dool-ri' based on the pre-division of the land).

B. On April 30, 2004, Plaintiff Jeon Soo-B and EE, respectively, answer 141-19, △△-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, △△-gun, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-do, respectively.

In 4,80 square meters, 1/20 square meters of 141-20 square meters of 1,60 square meters of 141-20 square meters of 1,600 square meters of ri, i.e., ownership shares, and transferred to DoD on April 29, 2005 (hereinafter “the instant land”). The land was changed by land category and divided into 141-19, 141-20 square meters of 4,80 square meters of 141-15, 141-19, and 141-20 square meters of ri, but is called “the instant land”).

C. HeCC’s transfer value to the Defendant on or around May 2005 due to the transfer of land 141-15

The preliminary return and payment of the transfer income tax on the ○○○○○○○ source was made. On May 2005, the Plaintiff pre-B made the preliminary return and payment of the transfer income tax on the ○○○○ source with the transfer value on the ground of the transfer of the 141-19 land and the 1/20 share of the 141-20 land.

D. As a result of the tax investigation, the Defendant did not permit the 141-15 land owner but the Plaintiff Jeon-A.

In addition, the instant land was transferred in the form of KRW 494,00,000, not individual transactions. The transfer price of the instant land was divided by lots according to the standard market price at the time of transfer on February 1, 2014, on the ground that “The transfer price of the instant land is KRW 141-15, KRW 00, KRW 141-19, KRW 141-20, KRW 141-20, KRW 00, and KRW 00,000 if the transfer price of the instant land is calculated by lots of lots of land at the time of transfer.”

With respect to the income tax (including the additional tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) from 005 ○○ billion won reverted to the year 2005.

On February 7, 2014, the notice was issued on February 7, 2014 to Plaintiff B, respectively, the notice of deduction of capital gains tax of KRW 000,000 for the year 205 (hereinafter “instant disposition”). (Inasmuch as the scope of imposition of capital gains tax alleged by Plaintiff was limited to the deducted amount, imposition of capital gains tax against the Plaintiffs is limited to the deducted amount.)

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 11, 12 evidence, Eul 1, 2 evidence (Evidence A 12, Eul 1, 2 evidence) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

For the following reasons, the instant disposition is unlawful.

(i) the first argument;

Since the actual owner of the 141-15 land is the HeCC and the Plaintiff Jeon-A merely dealt with the sale business upon delegation from the HeCC, the imposition of capital gains tax on Plaintiff Jeon-young is illegal.

(ii) the second argument;

A sales contract stating the price of the land in this case as ○○○○ is prepared for the purpose of obtaining a loan by the buyer, and the buyer’s Gangwon F was set at the end of April 25, 2005, but the buyer’s Gangnam was aware of his ability and renounced, and thus, the validity of the sales contract was invalidated. Thereafter, on April 27, 2005, Plaintiff BB, HuCC, and EE entered into a sales contract with NA on April 27, 2005. The transfer price of the land in this sales contract is ○○○○, 141-19, and 141-20 is ○○○.

(iii) the third assertion;

In the course of the instant land purchase and sale, Plaintiff JeonB and HeCC paid 00,000 won for the introduction fee to the largestG, and 00,000 won for the introduction fee to New H. In order to sell the instant land as a site for electric source, HuCC paid 0,000 won to New H to sell it as a site for electric source and performed reclamation work. The introduction fee and reclamation work cost should be recognized as necessary expenses.

B. Determination

1) As to the first argument

In full view of the respective statements and arguments of Eul 4, 5, and 9, the plaintiff Lee Dong-15

At the time of death of land, it borrowed money from HeCC due to shortage of money, registered the ownership transfer in the name of HeCC for the purpose of collateral security, and Plaintiff Jeon Soo-soo sold 141-15 land as business funds were required, and it can be recognized that HeCC did not participate in the sale of land 141-15, and accordingly, the actual owner of land 141-15 is the Plaintiff Jeon-soo.

The first argument is without merit.

2) As to the second argument

In full view of each of the statements and arguments in Gap evidence 6, Eul evidence 2-6, Eul 5, 6, 8, and 9, the plaintiffs and EE entered into a contract to sell the land of this case to ○○○○ on March 9, 2005 with ParkJ, which borrowed the name of KangF on March 9, 2005, and it can be recognized that the registration of ownership transfer was completed on April 29, 2005 under the name of ParkJ lending. Accordingly, E transferred the land of this case to ○○○○.

According to the statements in Gap evidence 2-1 through 3, Gap evidence 3, and 10, it may be found that the contract was made on April 27, 2005 between HuCC and DoD on the purchase and sale of 141-15 land to ○○○○○, and the contract was made on April 27, 2005 between the plaintiff Jeon-A, E and DoD on the purchase and sale of 141-19 land and 141-20 land to ○○○○○, respectively; according to the deposit order of HuCC, YK deposited ○○○○○○ on April 28, 2005, respectively.

B. According to Gap evidence 2-6's statement, it can be acknowledged that "the substantial amount of this contract is ○○○, but the amount reported to the administrative authority is ○○○○," is stated in the contract dated March 9, 2005, and according to this, the transfer value of each of the above contracts dated April 27, 2005 is the transfer value.

It is a false contract made to underreporting, and ○○○ won deposited in the financial account of the HeCC is intended to disguise the details of payment.

The second argument is without merit.

3) As to the third argument

In full view of the respective descriptions and arguments of Eul 5 and 9, the plaintiff Lee Dong-young and the plaintiff Lee Dong-young

Recognizing that this case’s land was sold by delegation to MM, the fact that the sale was made before the Plaintiff

In addition, it is difficult for the Plaintiffs to believe that the sum of the introduction fees to New H and MaximumG was paid 000,000 won, and that the HuCC paid the ○○○○○○○○ cost of reclamation work to the new H, and that it is consistent with the foregoing, the entries in Gap evidence 5-1, 2, Gap evidence 6, and 7, and the testimony of the witness Hahh is difficult to believe. Since the transfer airline and the transfer of the land of this case, it is not sufficient to recognize the aforementioned only by the descriptions in the 13-2 and 3-3 of the evidence, which are the airline company prior to the acquisition

The third argument is without merit.

4) Sub-committee

Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit, and the disposition of this case is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed in entirety as it is without merit. It is so ordered as per Disposition.

shall be ruled.