Cho High Court Decision 2009No4016 (No. 24, 2010)

In case of filing a return of capital gains tax with false contract, the exclusion period for imposition of ten years is applied.

“A false sales contract in which a false declaration is made to grant credibility to a false amount, and to conceal the actual transaction value, is prepared and submitted together with a false sales contract which states the amount of transfer price under consideration, and such act of the Plaintiff constitutes “Fraud or other unlawful act which significantly makes it difficult to impose and collect taxes as

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

Man Doz 300

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 34,412,350 for the Plaintiff on September 1, 2009 shall be revoked.

쇠지지鹬 u3000

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 19, 199, the Plaintiff acquired and owned AAB BB apartment 148-4, 202, 108 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) in KRW 93,080,00, and transferred it to Nonparty D on April 19, 2002.

B. On April 19, 2002, EE reported the transfer of the instant real estate to the Defendant on April 19, 2002 by the Plaintiff’s delegation, a preliminary return of tax base of capital gains tax was filed to the effect that no capital gains tax has been paid at KRW 80,00,000, and the acquisition value was 93,080,000.

C. On June 23, 2009, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the pre-announcement of taxation that the transfer value of the instant real estate will be KRW 196,00,000, which was confirmed by the above priorD, and that the acquisition value will be assessed as KRW 93,080,000, which was calculated by considering the successful bid price as KRW 93,080,00,000.

D. On August 20, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for the review of the propriety of the taxation prior to taxation. On August 20, 2009, the Defendant rendered a decision to the effect that the actual transfer value of the instant real estate is KRW 172,50,000, the actual acquisition value is KRW 93,080,000, the successful bid price, and other necessary expenses are assessed as KRW 3,392,680, respectively.

E. On September 1, 2009, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition imposing KRW 34,412,350 on the transfer of the instant real estate to the Plaintiff on September 1, 2009, according to the purport of the decision on the propriety of the aforementioned taxation prior to taxation.

F. On November 6, 2009, the Plaintiff appealed to the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but on May 24, 2010, the appeal was dismissed.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including virtual numbers), Eul evidence 1 to 7 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

“1) Although the Plaintiff’s disposal of the instant real estate to Nonparty D, it is difficult to delegate the preliminary return of transfer income tax to Nonparty E with the preparation of a certificate of approval necessary for the registration of transfer of ownership and the report of transfer of real estate at the time of transfer of the instant real estate, there is no fact that the Plaintiff delegated the preliminary return of transfer income tax. However, since the said EE voluntarily made a preliminary return of transfer income tax along with the report of transfer of the real estate, it cannot be deemed a lawful and effective preliminary return of transfer income tax. Therefore, even if the purchase price of the said real estate stated in the concurrent contract is lower than the amount of the land transaction, it cannot be deemed as a “Fraud or other unlawful act for which the exclusion period of national tax assessment is extended to 10 years under Article 26-2(1)3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes.” Therefore, since the instant disposal of the instant real estate was conducted after the expiration of the exclusion period of imposition of transfer income tax for the transfer of the said real estate from the date of transfer of the said real estate, it cannot be deemed as unlawful for the Plaintiff’s transfer tax base and tax amount to be determined by the transfer price.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Whether the preliminary return of the transfer income tax of this case was made by the Plaintiff’s delegation

원고는 이 사건 부동산을 양도할 당시 법무사 이EE에게 소유권이전등기에 필요 한 검인계약서 작성 및 부동산 양도신고를 위임한 사실은 있지만 양도소득세 예정신고 를 위임한 사실이 없다고 주장하면서 이에 부합하는 증거로 갑 제6호증의 2(확인서)를 제출하고 있고, 볍무사 이EE도 이에 부합하는 증언을 하였으나, 갑 제1 내지 5호증 (가지번호 포함), 을 제1 내지 7호증(가지번호 포함)의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들 즉, ① 이 사건 부동산의 양도 당시 시행되던 구 소득세법(2001. 12. 31. 법률 제6557호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다) 제165조, 같은 법 시행령(2001. 12. 31. 대통령령 제17456호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다) 제 224조에 의하면, 부동산을 양도한 사람은 양도한 부동산에 관하여 소유권이전등기를 신청하는 날까지 재정경제부령이 정하는 부동산양도신고서에 토지대장, 토지 및 건물 등기부 등본 등의 서류를 첨부하여 납세지 관할 세무서장에게 부동산 양도신고를 하여 야 하고, 구 소득세법 제96조 제1항 단서, 제97조 제1항 가목 단서에 의하여 부동산의 양도가액, 취득가액을 실지 거래가액으로 신고하는 경우에는 양도 및 취득에 관한 계약서 사본을 첨부하여야 하며, 이와 같은 부동산 양도신고를 한 때에는 양도소득세 예정신고를 한 것으로 본다고 규정하고 있는바, 원고는 이 사건 부동산의 양도 당시 법무사 이EE에게 이 사건 부동산의 소유권이전등기에 필요한 검인계약서 작성 및 부동 산 양도신고에 관한 권한을 위임하였다고 인정하고 있고, 위 법무사 이EE는 이 사건 부동산의 양도 당일 원고의 위임에 따라 매매대금을 80,000,000원으로 기재한 검인계약서를 작성한 후 납세지 관할 세무서장인 수영세무서장에게 부동산 양도신고와 함께 양도소득세 과세표준 예정신고를 하면서 위 부동산의 설지 양도가액에 관하여 위 검인 계약서의 사본을, 실지 취득가액에 관하여 원고가 위 부동산을 경매로 취득할 당시의 등기필증(등기촉탁서) 사본을 각각 첨부하여 제출하였다는 점, ② 부동산 양도 시에 매매대금을 줄여서 작성하는 속칭 다운계약서는 부동산 양도와 관련한 양도인의 세금(양도소득세 등) 부담을 줄이려는 의도 하에 양도인, 양수인 합의로 작성되므로, 이를 작 성한 경우 양도인에게는 양도소득세를 비롯한 관련 세금에 대한 세무신고용으로 제출 하려는 의도가 있다고 봄이 합리적이고, 실제 이 사건에 있어서 위 법무사 이EE가 이 사건 부동산의 양도에 관하여 부동산 양도신고와 함께 양도소득세 과세표준 예정신고를 할 당시 작성한 이 사건 부동산의 양도소득세 과세표준 신고 및 자진납부계산서, 검인계약서 등에 의하면, 위 부동산의 실지 양도가액은 80,000,000원으로, 실지 취득가액은 경매가격인 93,080,000원으로 각각 기재되어 있고, 이에 의하면 13,080,000원 상당의 양도차손이 발생하여 원고가 납부할 양도소득세가 없게 된다는 점, ③ 법무사가 부동산 양도인의 위임에 따라 소유권이전등기에 필요한 부동산 양도신고를 하면서 위임 범위를 넘어 양도소득세 과세표준 예정신고를 하거나 여기에 실지 거래가액을 확인 할 수 있는 양도가액, 취득가액에 관한 계약서 사본을 첨부한다는 것은 이례적이라는 점, ④ 위 법무사 이EE는 2010. 1. 15. 피고에게 이 사건 부동산의 양도 당시 여직원에게 위 부동산의 양도신고를 지시한 사실이 있을 뿐인데 여직원이 착오로 양도신고 외에 양도소득세 신고까지 한 것으로 추측된다는 취지의 확인서를 작성, 제출하고, 이 법원에서 같은 취지로 증언하였으나, 통상 법무사 사무소 여직원이 법무사의 지시에 반하여 양도소득세 신고를 한다는 것은 예상하기 어렵고, 여기에 원고가 위 법무사에 게 어떠한 민, 형사상 책임을 묻지 않고 있는 사정을 합쳐보면 위와 같은 확인서 작성 및 증언은 세무조사 결과 내지 이 사건 소송을 유리하제 하려는 원고의 요구에 따라 작성되거나 이루어진 것으로 보인다는 점, ⑤ 원고는 이 사건 부동산의 양도 당시 고 향에 30평 이하의 농가주택만을 보유하고 있어서 위 부동산의 양도가 1세대 1주택의 비과세에 해당될 것이라고 막연히 믿은 결과 양도소득세 예정신고를 예상하지 못하였다고 주장하나, 이와 같은 전제 사실을 인정할 별다른 증거가 없다는 점, ⑥ 위 법무사 이EE가 이 사건 부동산의 양도신고 당시 원고로부터 검인계약서 작성에 관한 권한을 위임받아 매매대금을 80.000.000원으로 기재하여 작성한 검인계약서에는 원고의 인감 도장이 날인되어 있는 반면에 양도소득세 과세표준 신고 및 자진납부계산서에는 원고의 막도장이 날인되어 있지만 앞서 본 바와 같이 위 법무사 이EE가 부동산 양도신고에 관한 권한을 위임받을 당시 실지 거래가액에 의한 양도소득세 과세표준 신고까지 위임받았다고 하면 위와 같이 양도소득세 과세표준 신고서에 원고의 인감도장이 날인 되어 있지 않다고 하여 별달리 문제가 될 것도 없다는 점 등을 종합해 보면, 위와 같은 원고 주장에 부합하는 갑 제6호증의 2의 기재와 증인 이EE의 증언은 쉽사리 믿기 어렵고, 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없으므로(오히려, 위에서 살펴본 여러 사정들에 의하면, 위 법무사 이EE가 부동산 양도신고와 함께 한 양도소득세 과세표준 예정신고도 원고의 위임에 의한 것으로 봄이 상당하다), 원고의 위 주장은 받아들이기 어렵다.

(2) Whether the actual transfer value of the instant real estate is KRW 172,500,000

As to the actual transfer value of the real estate of this case, the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff’s assertion as the transferor and the transferee, and there is no sales contract or documentary evidence proving each of the claims. Therefore, the transfer value of the real estate of this case is a case where the actual transaction value is not verified and thus, it should be calculated according to the estimated taxation. However, there is no transaction example, appraisal value, and there is no appraisal value to recognize it.

According to Articles 94(1), 96(1) main sentence, 97(1)1(a) main sentence, and 114(5) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6557, Dec. 31, 2001; hereinafter the same), where the transferor files a report on the transfer and acquisition value of real estate based on the actual transaction amount, the transfer value and acquisition value shall be based on the standard market price, and where the transferor files a report on the transfer and acquisition value of real estate based on the actual transaction amount, the transfer value shall be calculated based on the actual transaction value. The actual transaction value of the relevant asset, which serves as the basis for calculating the transfer income tax amount, refers to the value which the transferee transfers or takes over the assets at the time of the transaction and received or paid for it, and in such case, if it is impossible to verify the actual transaction value at the time of transfer or acquisition, the transaction case prescribed by the Presidential Decree may be the transfer value or acquisition value calculated by applying in sequence the transaction value, appraisal value or appraisal value.

Therefore, since estimated taxation is applicable only to cases where it is difficult to confirm or recognize the actual transaction value, it is reasonable to exclude the application of this case from the scope of the actual transaction value. Daehan, the transferor, and transferee, did not prepare a sales contract at the time of transfer in the tax investigation procedure of this case and prepared for the convenience of the registration of ownership transfer, and as stated in the approval agreement, the Plaintiff, the transferor, only for the actual sale price, stated that the amount of 172,50,000 won (120,000,000 won for lease deposit, 30,000,000, 22,500,000, 700, 700, 700, 700, 700, 700, 700, 700, 700, 200, 700, 700, 700, 700, 700, 200, 70, 7000, 700.

(3) Whether the cost of repairing the instant real estate was at least KRW 70 million

(A) Furthermore, the Plaintiff asserts that, even though the Plaintiff acquired the instant real estate by auction and disbursed approximately KRW 70 million as repair cost, there is no supporting document, it is difficult to verify the real acquisition value of the said real estate. Therefore, the acquisition value of the said real estate is a case where the actual transaction value is not verified and thus, it should be calculated according to the estimation taxation, but it should be calculated according to the standard market price, there is no transaction price, appraisal value, and conversion value.

However, as seen in the above (2) above, the transfer value and acquisition value shall be calculated on the basis of the standard market price in calculating the transfer value of real estate, and the transfer value and acquisition value of real estate shall be calculated on the basis of the actual transaction value in exceptional cases where the transferor reports the transfer value and acquisition value of real estate on August 19, 199. The actual transaction value of the pertinent asset, which serves as the basis for calculating the transfer income tax, refers to the value that the transferee transfers or acquires the assets at the time of the transaction and is paid or paid for the price and which is objectively recognizable by the sale contract or other documentary evidence. In this case, when the actual transaction value at the time of the transfer or acquisition cannot be confirmed, the transfer value or acquisition value shall be determined by the Presidential Decree, and the estimated transaction value shall be determined only when it is difficult to confirm or recognize the actual transaction value. Thus, it is reasonable to exclude the application of the taxation method to the extent that the actual transaction value cannot be confirmed. Since the Plaintiff acquired the pertinent real estate at the time of the sale of real estate on August 19, 19, 1999999, the real price of the pertinent real estate.

(B) However, since the Plaintiff’s above assertion was made after acquiring the real estate in this case and the capital expenses equivalent to the repair cost were to be included in necessary expenses, the burden of proving the legality of taxation, including the transfer income tax base, is imposed on the tax authority, and the tax base is to deduct necessary expenses from the transfer value. Thus, the burden of proving necessary expenses is to be imposed on the tax authority in principle. However, the expenses for repairing the real estate in this case claimed by the Plaintiff are favorable to the Plaintiff in calculating the transfer income tax, and the basic facts are within the area of the Plaintiff’s control, so it is difficult for the tax authority to investigate the Defendant, who is the Plaintiff, while it is difficult for the Plaintiff to prove as the Plaintiff. Such necessary expenses are to be proved by the Plaintiff (see Supreme Court Decision 86Nu121, May 24, 198).

Therefore, as to whether the Plaintiff paid 70 million won or more of the repair cost after the Plaintiff acquired the instant real estate, there has been evidence submitted by the Plaintiff (Evidence No. 7). However, this is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff paid the above repair cost only on the ground of the above verification, unless there is financial materials, etc. on the disbursement of repair cost to support this, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the necessary expenses related to the transfer of the instant real estate in relation to the transfer of the instant real estate is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff paid the above repair cost only on the ground of the above verification, except for the above verification, unless there is financial materials, etc. on the payment of repair cost to support the above amount of KRW 50 million,000,000, which is a real acquisition cost, at the time of the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the said real estate by auction, and there is no reason to claim that the Plaintiff is a real acquisition cost of KRW 930,000,000, which is the real acquisition cost of the instant real estate as seen.

(4) Whether the instant disposition was made within the exclusion period for national tax imposition

Article 26-2 (1) 1 and 3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes cannot be imposed after the lapse of five years from the date on which the pertinent national tax can be imposed. However, if a taxpayer fails to file a tax base return within the statutory due date, national tax may be imposed for 7 years. Here, a taxpayer’s act of evading national tax by fraud or other unlawful act means a deceptive scheme or other active act that makes it impossible to impose and collect tax or otherwise makes it difficult to do so. It does not constitute a mere 97Do2429, May 8, 1998. The Plaintiff’s act of imposing transfer income tax on the Defendant for 00 years after the lapse of 00. The Plaintiff’s disposal of real estate was 10 years after the lapse of 10 years from the date on which the said tax base return was filed, and the Plaintiff’s disposal of real estate was 10 years from the date on which the transfer was made by 1000,000 won or more, and the Plaintiff’s disposal of real estate was 90.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.