Jeju District Court 2014Guhap421

It is difficult to see that it is substantially transferred or acceptable and it is in violation of substance over form principle.

(As in the judgment of the court of first instance, since it is recognized that the actual transfer of land was known or it was accepted, it is difficult to view that the exclusion period is 10 years or more, and it violates the substance over form principle.

The exclusion period for national tax assessment under Article 26 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2015Nu105 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

Kim △△△

○ Head of tax office

Jeju District Court Decision 2014Guhap421 Decided February 4, 2015

o October 07, 2015

November 04, 2015

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The disposition that the Defendant imposed on the Plaintiff on May 2, 2013 at KRW 000,000,000, additional dues of KRW 000,000,000, and increased additional dues of KRW 0,000,000 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court's explanation on this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the modification of the written judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this case is cited by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

1. The following changes shall be made:

1. Details of the disposition;

(a) First sale contract;

1) On February 10, 2002, the Plaintiff purchased at KRW 00,000 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) from ○○○○ on February 10, 200 】 Si 】 (i) 】 (ii) 】 00,000,000 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”); and upon introduction by KimA, the Plaintiff sold the instant land to ○B. On August 10, 200 】 】 the maximum on August 10, 2002 】 between the Plaintiff and 】 (i) the Plaintiff’s purchase price of the instant land to sell KRW 00,000,000 for down payment (hereinafter “sale contract”) and the remainder on August 27, 2002 】 (i) 】 (ii) the sales contract was prepared to sell the instant land to ○B on the purchase price of KRW 00,000,000,000,000).

2) On August 27, 2002, the Plaintiff received KRW 000,000,000 from the purchase and sale balance, and affixed the Plaintiff’s signature and seal on the receipts stating “amount of KRW 00,000,000,000, and August 27, 2002,” and “amount of KRW 00,000,000,000, and August 19, 2002.”

(b) Second sale contract;

1) On August 17, 2002 between the Plaintiff and the NewB, the sales contract (hereinafter referred to as the “second sales contract”) was prepared between the Plaintiff and the NewB that the Plaintiff would sell the instant land to the NewB at KRW 00,000,000 (the down payment of KRW 00,000,000 on August 17, 2002, the intermediate payment of KRW 00,000,000 on August 27, 2002, and the remainder of KRW 00,000,000 on August 27, 2002, and was paid from the same dayB 】 the maximum amount of KRW 00,00,000.

2) On August 27, 2002, the NewB made a written confirmation of the fact of transaction that “The maximum amount of KRW 000,000,000 shall be paid to 】 (000,000,000 for the same day, and the down payment of KRW 00,000 for the same day, KRW 00,000 for the down payment, and KRW 00,000 for the remainder, KRW 00,000 for the remainder, August 27, 2002.”

(c) Reporting and payment of capital gains tax;

On October 30, 2002, the Plaintiff reported the transfer income tax of KRW 0,000,000 to the Defendant through ○○○, a tax agent, along with a sales contract with regard to the land of this case, and paid KRW 0,000,000 to the Defendant.

D. Disposition of this case

1) When NewB was subjected to expropriation of the instant land in around 2013, it reported the acquisition price of KRW 00,000,000 upon filing a transfer income return. On May 2, 2013, the Defendant decided that the Plaintiff intentionally omitted capital gains and decided that the sale price was KRW 00,000,000, including penalty tax, was 00,000,000 as capital gains tax (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

2) The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal on November 25, 2013. However, the Tax Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, 6 through 9, 11, 12, 21 evidence, Eul evidence 2 and 3 (including paper numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), the highest witness of the party concerned x part of the testimony and the purport of whole pleadings

○ up to 13 mal. “1 m. 4 m. m. 13 m. m.) The part “whether the Plaintiff became aware of the second sale contract

1) Whether the Plaintiff was aware of the second sale contract

(6) The Plaintiff appears to have received 00,000,000 won out of 00,000 won and paid 00,000,000 won out of 00,000 won to the Plaintiff for sale and purchase of 00,000 won and 00,000 won for the remaining 0,000,000 won for the sale and purchase of 00,000 won and 00,000 won for the sale and purchase of 0,00 won and 0,000 won for the Plaintiff’s remaining 0,00 won and 0,000 won for the sale and purchase of 0,00 won and 0,00 won for the sale and purchase of 0,00 won and 0,00 won for the Plaintiff’s remaining 0,00 won and 0,000 won for the sale and purchase of 0,00 won and 0,000 won for the Plaintiff’s remaining 0,000 won for the Plaintiff’s name and 2.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.