Daejeon District Court-2016-Gu Partnership-101425 (No. 29, 2016)

Whether a double contract is null and void through a representative (small father)

In light of the fact that the plaintiff does not seem to take civil and criminal measures against his/her agent (performance assistant), the contract prepared by his/her agent shall not be deemed null and void.

Article 26-2 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 12-3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Articles 94 and 96 of the

Daejeon High Court-2016-Nu-12828 ( October 23, 2017)

KimA

The director of the tax office

National Rotations

2017.03.02

2017.03.23

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. On September 1, 2014, the defendant confirmed that the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 149,723,761 against the plaintiff is null and void.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court's explanation on this case is that "the 8th court's 8th court's 6th court's 8th court's 6th court's 6th 12th 'the 6th 12th 'the 6th 'the 17th '5th ')' is "the 7th 'the 6th 'the 17th 'the 6th 'the 17th '5'' which is "the 6th 16th ')', and the 6th 'the 16th 'the 16th 's 16th ' is the 16th 'the 6th 'the 16th court'.

2. The addition;

Part 6. Additional under Part 16

5) In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that the real estate sales contract (No. 4) drafted around March 2005, in relation to the instant sales contract, was the contract duly made between the Plaintiff and the buyer, CCC, DDD and EE, while the real estate sales contract (No. 3, hereinafter referred to as the “instant contract”) made on January 28, 2005 did not have the Plaintiff’s signature and seal, and the buyer stated only one person of CCC, and the land price at that time stated excessive sales amount that does not correspond to all at that time.

In addition to the statement of No. 4, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as adding the purport of the pleading to the statement of No. 4, namely, ① although the contract of this case does not place the Plaintiff’s signature and seal in the column of “seller,” the Plaintiff’s personal information and name are written in the column of “BBB,” and BB’s seal is affixed to the name next to that of the Plaintiff’s father, the Plaintiff’s wife, and ② the buyer’s name and seal are written in the column of “D and EE,” but the other joint buyer’s personal information and name are written in the column.

On the other hand, DD and EE may be deemed to have delegated the purchase to CCC or jointly purchased it later, and ③ the fact that the amount is excessively written in excess of the market price at the time of the purchase is written on the buyer’s side.

The contract of this case merely constitutes a ground for revocation on the ground of mistake, etc.

4. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant contract is null and void is difficult in light of the following: (a) it is difficult to deem it null and void; and (b) the Plaintiff does not seem to have taken civil and criminal measures against BB.

6) Furthermore, the Plaintiff asserted that “the actual benefit holder of the instant sales contract is CCC or BB, and thus, the instant disposition cannot be imposed on the Plaintiff,” or “BB is not the Plaintiff’s agent or performance assistant.” However, there is no other evidence to acknowledge each of the above arguments by the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is rejected.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.