The transfer of the instant additional house is null and void by false conspiracy.

Since the transfer of the instant additional house is invalid by a false conspiracy, the Plaintiff constitutes two houses for one household at the time of the transfer of the instant house, and the Defendant’s disposition premised thereon is legitimate.

Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2014Gudan51602 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

Park AA

Head of Eastern Tax Office

July 24, 2014

September 25, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

Disposition imposing capital gains tax of KRW 00,000,000 on the Plaintiff on June 5, 2013 by the Defendant

(b) revoke the subsection (3).

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 28, 1994, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of 00 apartment No. 00,000, and one parcel, Seoul 00-dong 00-00, and registered the ownership transfer for the reason of donation with respect to 1/2 of 1/2 of 1/2 of 2009, to BB on February 4, 2009. Thereafter, the instant housing was sold through a voluntary auction on January 27, 201, and the ownership transfer registration has been completed toCC.

B. On March 201, the Plaintiff filed a preliminary return on the tax base of capital gains by applying the special provisions on non-taxation for one household in relation to the transfer of the instant house.

C. On June 5, 2013, the Defendant, as of the transfer date of the instant house, excluded the application of the special case of non-taxation of one house for one household on the ground that the Plaintiff, as of the date of the instant house transfer, owns 00,000 Dong 000 and 0000 Dong 1 parcel other than the instant house (hereinafter “the instant additional house”) from the application of the special case of non-taxation of one house, issued a notice of correction and notification of KRW 00,000,000 for capital gains tax for the year 201 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On August 28, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal. Around December 10, 2013, the Plaintiff was dismissed by the Tax Tribunal.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff and BB (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff, etc.”) entered into a sales contract on December 24, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant sales contract”) with DD on the instant additional housing, and completed the registration of ownership transfer to DD on December 28, 201. Therefore, the Plaintiff did not own the instant additional housing at the time of the transfer date of the instant housing, and thus, the special provisions on non-taxation for one household should apply to the calculation of the transfer income tax of the instant additional housing.

2) The defendant's assertion

The instant sales contract was concluded on December 23, 2010, where the auction was under way on the instant house, and the permission for sale was granted on December 30, 2010. However, the instant sales contract was concluded on December 24, 2010, which was the following day after the said successful bid. The instant sales contract was concluded with the aim of reducing tax burden by making the instant house with higher appraisal value sell and sell it later than the instant additional house. After the sales contract was concluded, the instant sales contract was concluded with the intent of reducing the tax burden. Since the Plaintiff still has the authority to use, profit-making, and dispose of the instant additional house after the sales contract was concluded, the instant sales contract is null and void as a contract by false representation. Therefore, in calculating the transfer income tax on the instant house, the application of the special provision on non-taxation for one household

(b) Fact of recognition;

1) The registration relation to the instant housing and the instant additional housing is as indicated in the attached Table. The appraisal value of the instant housing is KRW 1,020,000,000, and the appraisal value of the instant additional housing is KRW 580,000,000.

2) On December 24, 2010, when entering into the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff, etc. and DD specified the sales price as KRW 600 million, and the down payment and the intermediate payment as KRW 00 million shall be paid on the date of the contract. The seller specified the special terms that “the seller shall pay the debts and taxes related to the instant additional housing as of the remainder payment payment date, and the amount of KRW 00 million out of the sales price shall be offset as collateral obligation, and shall be replaced by BB’s deposit.” In addition, BB entered into the instant additional housing lease contract with DD on the same day, the deposit was determined as KRW 00 million, and the lease period was not determined.

3) DoDD is a taxpayer EE who represented the pre-assessment review, etc. on the transfer income of the instant housing by a purchaser of the instant additional housing.

4) Even after the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff et al. resides in the instant house.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 3, 6, 7 evidence, Gap 4-3, Eul 2, 10 evidence, Eul 4

- 1, 2- Each entry and the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

In light of the following circumstances, the aforementioned evidence and evidence No. 4-2 and No. 11 were found to have been combined with the overall purport of pleadings. In other words, at the time of entering into the sales contract of this case, the auction procedure was conducted by discretionary auction as to the housing of this case and the additional housing of this case (the housing of this case was awarded once more than once, and the additional housing of this case was awarded two times). In fact, after the conclusion of the sales contract of this case, the housing of this case was sold by voluntary auction after approximately 1 month, the additional housing of this case was sold by approximately 2 months after the conclusion of the sales contract of this case. The plaintiff et al. and DD prepared a written agreement on the detailed matters at the time of entering into the sales contract of this case. However, the provisional attachment registration of the creditor Korea Electric Power Corporation as to the share of the plaintiff of this case among the additional housing of this case was written, and there was no special reason to view the additional DD as being valid at the time of entering into the sales contract of this case.

As long as the instant sales contract is null and void, the Plaintiff appears to have owned the instant additional house at the time of the transfer of the instant house, and accordingly, the Defendant’s disposition premised on this premise is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s assertion against it

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.