National High Court Decision 2007J 4098 (208.02)

Actual transaction price of land and housing;

Although the transfer value reported is the value based on the actual contract, it is judged that the contract confirmed by the tax authority is the true contract in view of the special contract terms and conditions, etc.

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

Article 96 (Transfer Price)

Article 114 (Determination, Correction and Notification of Assessment Standard and Amount of Transfer Income Tax)

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

The Defendant revoked each disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 924,614,00 for the Plaintiff on August 6, 2007, and capital gains tax of KRW 460,916,880 for the year 2002.

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

(a) Preliminary return on the tax base of transfer income in 202;

(1) The Plaintiff acquired the land of this case by adding up each of the above land to ○○○-dong 593 square meters, 1,073.7 square meters, 593-1 square meters, 757.5 square meters, 593-13 square meters, 956, and 6 square meters (hereinafter “the land of this case”). On August 16, 2002, on August 16, 2002, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of each of the above 593-1 land to ○○○-dong 593-1, and completed the registration of transfer of each of the above 593-1 land to ○○○○○○○, a corporation, with documentary evidence, such as a sales contract on the land of this case, and completed the preliminary return of transfer income as KRW 3,500,000,000,000, 202 and 2012.

(2) 원고는 안산시 단원구 ◎◎동 731 ◇◇◇◇ 111동 2402호(이하 '이 사건 주택'이라고 한다)를 취득하였다가, 2002. 10. 21. 박◆◆에게 이 사건 주택에 관하여 소유 권이전등기를 마쳐 준 다음, 2003. 1. 9.경 피고에게 위 주택에 관한 매매계약서 등 증빙서류를 첨부하여 위 주택의 양도가액을 실지거래가액인 225,000,000원으로, 양도소득금액을 24,624,830원으로 하여 양도소득과세표준 예정신고를 하였다.

(b) Preliminary return on the tax base of transfer income in 203;

(1) The Plaintiff acquired 200 to May 16, 200 to 200 to ○○○○-dong, Incheon, 593-3 to 1,021 square meters (hereinafter “the instant 2 land”). The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer of the instant 2 land to ○○○○-dong, Kim Dong-dong, and Lee ○○-dong, and completed the registration of ownership transfer of the instant 2 land. On July 17, 2003, the Plaintiff made a preliminary return on the tax base of transfer income by attaching documentary evidence, such as a sales contract on the said land, to the Defendant as the actual transaction price, with the transfer value of the said land as KRW 1,125,050,000, the transfer value

(c) Reversion of the year 200 and the imposition of the transfer income tax reverted to the year 2003;

(1) As a result of examining and examining the transfer income tax of the instant land and housing within the period from January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2003, the director of the Central Regional Tax Office reported the tax data to the Defendant by deeming that the transfer value of each of the instant land and housing was underreported.

(2) Accordingly, the Defendant calculated the transfer value of the instant land as KRW 4,812,084,535, and the transfer value of the instant housing as KRW 309,00,000, in total, KRW 5,121,084,535, and calculated the transfer value of the instant land and housing as KRW 1,631,931,385, and the total determined tax amount as KRW 1,00,103,161; and (2) calculated the transfer value of the instant two land as KRW 2,120,00,000 by deeming the transfer value of the instant two land as KRW 2,129,697,100, the total determined tax amount as KRW 474,912,749, and the transfer value of the instant housing as KRW 309,00,000; and imposed the transfer income tax as KRW 924,60,408,968,00.

[Based on the recognition] Gap evidence 3-1 to 5, Eul evidence 1-1 to 8, Eul evidence 2-1 to 5, Eul evidence 3-1 to 4, Eul evidence 4-1, 2, Eul evidence 18 and 19, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Although the Plaintiff filed a preliminary return on the tax base of transfer income of each of the instant land and housing in accordance with the normal sales contract and reported the transfer value as the actual transaction price, the Defendant rendered each of the instant dispositions by deeming that the reported transfer value is different from the actual transaction price without any grounds. This is an unlawful disposition contrary to the principle of base taxation.

(2) Since the retention period of each of the instant lands and housing is at least one year, the revised transfer value shall be calculated on the basis of the standard market price.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) Part of the land of this case 1

(A) Around June 29, 2001, Korea-U.S. Construction Co., Ltd. purchased the instant land with Korea Land Corporation. A sales contract was concluded between June 29, 2001 and June 29, 2006 with the purport that the purchase price shall be paid in installments in ten installments. The Plaintiff transferred the status of purchaser under the above sales contract from Korea-U.S. Construction Co., Ltd. on April 15, 2002, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the same day.

(B) Upon filing a preliminary return on the tax base of transfer income of the land of this case, the Plaintiff attached each sales contract (No. 1-3,5,7) with respect to the transfer of the said land. The Plaintiff’s total amount of KRW 3,500,000,000, and the contract date is July 16, 2002.

(C) From July 6, 2002 to August 16, 2002, 200, ○○, which had been the representative director of the integrated construction of Bright and the comprehensive construction of B right to Bright, remitted to the Plaintiff’s account the limit of KRW 2,400,000,000. On two occasions on August 20, 2002 and September 13, 2002, the Plaintiff paid 1,012,084,535 won including loan repayment interest out of KRW 2,40,00,00, which the Plaintiff received as security, on two occasions, paid by subrogation the Plaintiff the remainder of the loan 1,40,000,000 won, and on September 13, 2002, the total amount of the above amount is KRW 4,812,00,005,535 won.

(2) Part of the house in this case

(가) □□유리판매 주식회사는 2000. 1. 25.경 ■■산업 주식회사와 사이에 이 사건 주택을 분양받기로 하는 내용의 분양계약을 체결하였고, 원고는 2001. 3. 29.경 □□유리판매 주식회사로부터 위 분양계약상의 수분양자 지위를 양도받은 다음, 2001. 4. 3. 이 사건 주택에 관한 소유권이전등기를 마쳤다.

(나) 원고는 이 사건 주택에 대한 양도소득과세표준 예정신고를 하면서 위 주택의 양도에 관한 매매계약서(을 제3호증의 4, 이하 '이 사건 1매매계약서'라고 한다)를 첨부 하였는데, 위 매매체약서의 매매대금란에는 225,000,000원, 계약일자란에는 2002. 10. 5.이라고 기재되어 있고, 매도인 및 매수인란에는 원고와 박◆◆의 도장이 날인되어 있으며, 공인중개사의 중개 없이 계약서가 작성된 것으로 되어 있고, 특약사항이 별도로 기재되어 있지는 않다.

(다) 한편, 피고가 원고에 대한 세무조사과정에서 발견된 이 사건 주택에 대한 매매계약서(을 제10호증, 이하 '이 사건 2매매계약서'라고 한다)의 매매대금란에는 309,000,000원, 계약일자란에는 2002. 9. 23.이라고 기재되어 있고, 매수인란에는 박◆◆의 도장이 날인되어 있으나 매도인란에는 원고의 도장이 날인되지 않은 대신 공인중개사 김★★의 도장이 날인되어 있으며, 김★★의 중개를 통하여 계약서가 작성된 것으로 되어 있고, 특약사항이 수기로 기재되어 있다.

(라) 김★★은 원고 명의의 예금계좌로 2002. 10. 21. 폰뱅킹으로 33,000,000원을, 수표로 215,000,000원을 송금하였다.

(3) Part of the second land of this case

(A) The △△ Industrial Co., Ltd. concluded a sales contract with the Korea Land Corporation to purchase the instant 2 land. The Plaintiff, around June 26, 2002, transferred the status of purchaser under the above sales contract from the △△ Industrial Co., Ltd., and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the said land around June 28, 2002.

(B) In filing a preliminary return on the tax base of transfer income of the land of this case, the Plaintiff attached a sales contract (No. 236,00,000 won in the sales price column of the above sales contract, and the contract date shall be February 14, 2003 in the sales price column of the above sales contract, and the seller and the buyer column shall affix their seals to the Plaintiff, Kim Young-si, and Lee Young-soo, and Lee ○○, respectively, and the contract was made without brokerage of the agent, and all matters other than the special agreement shall be governed by general practices.

(C) Meanwhile, the Defendant stated that the sale and purchase contract (No. 10 No. 10; hereinafter referred to as “the sales contract of this case”) for the land of this case discovered in the course of the Defendant’s tax investigation with the Plaintiff is KRW 2,120,000,000 and February 14, 2003 on the contract date date. The seller and the buyer’s column are affixed with the seal of the Plaintiff and Kim Young-gu, Seoul Special Self-Governing City, and the contract is made without brokerage of a licensed real estate agent, and the special agreement is written as “the loan of KRW 920,000,000 at the same time with the transfer of ownership”.

(D) From February 15, 2003 to May 15, 2003, which was around the date of the sale and purchase contract for the pipe land of this case, KRW 120,000,000 was deposited in the deposit account in the Plaintiff’s name. On June 18, 2004, the Plaintiff paid KRW 920,000,000, which was loaned on June 28, 2002 by the Plaintiff, after completing the registration of ownership transfer for the said land. The sum of the above amounts is KRW 2,120,000,000.

[Ground for recognition] The evidence Nos. 3-1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1-3 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 2-3 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 3-4, Eul evidence Nos. 5-1 through 21, Eul evidence Nos. 6, Eul evidence Nos. 7-1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 8-1 through 3, Eul's evidence Nos. 9, 10, 13, 14, Eul evidence Nos. 15-1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 16, 17, and the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

According to Article 96 (1) 4 and 6 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7837 of Dec. 31, 2005; hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), the transfer value of land and buildings shall be based on the standard market price: Provided, That if the real estate is within one year after its acquisition, or the transferor reports the actual transaction value at the time of transfer or acquisition to the head of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment by the deadline for filing the final return of tax base of transfer income along with evidential documents, the actual transaction value shall be based on the actual transaction value. According to Article 114 (2) and (4) of the Act, if the head of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment revises the tax base of transfer income and tax due to omissions or errors in the reported details of the tax base of transfer income by the person who has made the preliminary return of transfer income, the transfer value, etc. shall be the value under Article 96, but if the actual transaction value is confirmed different from

(1) Actual transaction price of each of the instant lands and houses

그러므로, 이 사건 각 토지 및 주택의 실지거래가액이 얼마인지 여부에 관하여 살피건대, 위 인정사실에 의하면, ① 원고가 양도소득과세표준 예정신고를 하면서 첨부 한 이 사건 1토지의 양도에 관한 각 매매계약서상의 양도가액은 3,500,000,000원이고, 그 외 위 토지의 향도에 관한 다른 매매계약서가 확인된 바는 없으나, ●●종합건설 및 이○○이 위 토지의 양도에 관한 매매계약 체결일 무렵인 2002. 7. 6.경부터 소유권 이전등기일인 2002. 8. 16.까지 원고 명의의 예금계좌로 입금하거나, 원고의 채무를 대위변제하는 등으로 합계 4,812,084,535원을 지급하였고, ●●종합건설 및 이○○과 원고 사이에 위 토지의 양도에 관한 거래 외에 다른 거래가 있었다고 볼 만한 자료도 없는 점, ② 이 사건 1매매계약서와는 달리 이 사건 2매매계약서는 특약사항이 수기로 기재되어 있고, 공인중개사 김★★의 중개를 통하여 작성되었으며, 김★★이 이 사건 주택에 관한 소유권이전등기일인 2002. 10. 21. 원고 명의의 예금계좌로 합계 248,000,000원을 입금한 것으로 보아 이 사건 2매매계약서가 위 주택의 양도에 관한 실제 계약서로 보이는 점, ③ 이 사건 3매매계약서와는 달리 이 사건 4매매계약서에는 기존의 대출금 처리와 관련한 특약사항이 구체적으로 기재되어 있을 뿐만 아니라, 이 사건 2토지의 매매계약일 무렵인 2003. 2. 15.부터 소유권이전등기일 무렵인 2003. 5. 15.까지 1,200,000,000원이 뭔고 명의의 예금계좌로 입금되었고, 김☆☆이 소유권이전등기를 마친 후 이 사건 4매매계약서상의 특약사항 내용과 같이 위 토지에 설정되어 있던 근저당권의 피담보채무 920,000,000원을 변제한 것으로 보아 이 사건 4매매계약서가 이 사건 2토지의 양도에 관한 실제 계약서로 보이는 점 등의 사정이 인정되고, 여기에다가 원고가 위와 같이 밝혀진 금융거래내역에 대하여 이 사건 각 토지 및 주택의 양도와 관련 없는 거래로 인한 것이라는 점에 관한 아무런 주장ㆍ입증을 하지 않고 있는 점을 보태어 보면, 이 사건 1토지의 실지거래가액은 적어도 4,812,084,535원이고, 이 사건 주택의 실지거래가액은 309,000,000원이며, 이 사건 2토지의 실지거래가액은 2,120,000,000원 으로 봄이 상당하므로, 이에 따라 양도소득세를 경정한 피고의 이 사건 각 처분이 위 법하다고 할 수는 없다.

(2) Method of calculating the amended transfer value

According to the above facts, the plaintiff acquired the land of this case on or around April 22, 2002, and transferred the land of this case on or around August 16, 2002. The plaintiff acquired the land of this case on or around June 28, 2002 and transferred the land of this case on or around May 16, 2003. Thus, the plaintiff transferred each of the land of this case within one year after acquiring each of the land of this case within one year after acquiring each of the land of this case. Thus, the transfer price of each of the land of this case should be calculated as the actual transaction price. In addition, although the plaintiff reported the transfer price of each of the land of this case as the actual transaction price of each of the land of this case as the actual transaction price of this case, the transfer price of each land of this case and each of the houses of this case should be calculated as the actual transaction price, so there is no error in the disposition of this case by the defendant corrected the transfer income tax base and tax amount.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim seeking the cancellation of the rejection of this case is without merit, so it is decided to dismiss this case's claim.