Seoul Administrative Court-2014-Gu Group-57914 ( October 24, 2016)

It can be unreasonable to implement the obligation under tax law with the knowledge that it is obligated under tax law.

As the respondent has reported on the total transfer value of the subject matter in a lawsuit claiming the return of legal reserve, it is unreasonable to expect that the person entitled to legal reserve should be aware that he/she was liable to report the transfer income tax.

Article 47-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2016Nu57924 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

AA, BB, CCC, DD, EE, FF, GG

O Head of the tax office and 4

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2015Gudan57914 decided June 2, 2016

December 14, 2016

January 18, 2017

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. On December 1, 2013, Defendant OO head of the tax office revoked the imposition of a non-reported penalty tax for 200,000,000 won for 2008 against the Plaintiffs, and the imposition of a non-reported penalty tax for 2009 for Defendant OO head of the tax office to Plaintiff BB, Defendant OO head of the tax office to Plaintiff CCC, Defendant DD head of the tax office, and Defendant OO head of the tax office to Plaintiff EE head of the tax office on December 1, 2013, respectively.

3. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

The court's explanation in this part is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (from No. 3 to No. 64). Thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Legal doctrine on the imposition of penalty tax

Under the tax law, penalty taxes are administrative sanctions imposed, as prescribed by the Act, in cases where a taxpayer violates various obligations, such as a declaration and tax payment, without justifiable grounds, in order to facilitate the exercise of the right to impose taxes and the realization of a tax claim. Therefore, in cases where there is a justifiable reason that it is difficult for the taxpayer to be unaware of his/her obligations due to a conflict of views arising out of the meaning of interpretation of the tax law beyond the simple scope of the land or the scope of the misunderstanding thereof, it may not be imposed (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Du4711, Oct. 27, 2016).

B. Key issue of the instant case

이 사건 증거에 의하여 확정되는 사실관계 즉, 망 XXX이 2002. 10. 18. 이 사건 부동산1)에 관하여 그 장남인 원고 AAA에게 7/10지분, 그 차남인 원고 FFF에게 나머지 3/10지분을 각각 증여하여 2003. 11. 7. 그에 따른 등기를 마친 후2006. 7. 30. 사망하자, 그 배우자인 망 HHH(2012. 10.경 사망)과 그 딸들인 원고 BBB, CCC, DDD가 2007. 7. 3. 원고 AAA을 상대로 유류분반환 청구소송을 제기하여 그 소송이 진행되던 중에, 원고 AAA이 2008. 7. 31. 이 사건 부동산에 대한 자신의 7/10지분을 주식회사 QQ에 양도(이하 이를 '이 사건 양도'라고 한다)하면서 그 대금의 80%에 해당하는 00,000,000,000원을 수령하였고, 그 후 위 소송에서 2008. 8. 29. 원고 AAA이 이 사건 양도에 따른 매매대금 중 망 HHH에게 3/30 지분, 원고 BBB, CCC, DDD에게 각 2/30 지분을 지급하되, 이 사건 양도에 따른 양도소득세 등 제세공과금을 망 HHH과 위 원고들의 지분에 해당하는 금액만큼 각각 공제하고 지급할 수 있도록 하는 조정에 갈음하는 결정이 내려지고 그 무렵 그 결정이 확정됨에 따라, 원고 AAA이 2009. 5. 21.에 이르기까지 망 HHH에게 000,000,000원, 원고 BBB, CCC, DDD, EEE에게 각 000,000,000원을 지급한 후, 2009. 7. 15. 주식회사QQ으로부터 잔금을 수령하자, 2009. 9. 30. 이 사건 양도에 따른 양도소득세 0,000,000,000원을 신고・납부하였으나, 망 HHH과 원고 BBB, CCC, DDD, EEE도 이 사건 양도 중 그 유류분에 해당하는 지분의 양도에 따른 양도소득세에 대하여 납세의무자로서 신고・납부의무가 있다고 본 피고들이 2013. 12. 1. 원고들에 대하여 주문 제2항 기재와 같은 무신고 가산세를 부과하는 이 사건 처분4)을 한 이 사건에서, 망 HHH과 원고 BBB, CCC, DDD, EEE에게 이 사건 양도에 따른 양도소득세 신고의무를 게을리 한 점을 탓할 수 없는 정당한 사유가 있는지 여부가 문제된다.

C. Determination

However, Supreme Court Decision 2010Da42624, 42631 Decided March 14, 2013 ruled that "if a person entitled to legal reserve of inheritance exercises his/her right to claim the return of legal reserve of inheritance against a person entitled to claim the return of legal reserve of inheritance, the gift or testamentary gift infringing his/her right to claim the return of legal reserve of inheritance becomes retroactively null and void," and on the other hand, the above decision does not have a separate provision regarding the method of return of legal reserve of inheritance of Articles 1112 through 1118, while the Civil Code recognizes the legal reserve of inheritance of Korea and provides that "it can be claimed to return the property within the extent that it falls short of "Article 1115 (1)". In light of the above provision, the person entitled to return the legal reserve of inheritance of inheritance of which would normally be returned, or if it is impossible to return the original property, the equivalent amount should be returned. Even if the legal reserve of inheritance of inheritance of inheritance of which would be returned between the person entitled to claim the return of legal reserve of inheritance."

위와 같은 대법원 판례의 취지에 비추어 보면, 앞서 본 바와 같이, 원고 AAA이 2008. 7. 31.자 이 사건 양도를 통하여 그 매수인인 주식회사QQ으로부터 그 대금의 80%에 해당하는 00,000,000,000원을 수령한 이상, 망 HHH과 원고 BBB, CCC, DDD가 유류분반환 청구소송을 제기한 상태였다고 하더라도, 주식회사 QQ이 이 사건 양도 당시 망 HHH 등의 유류분권리자를 해함을 알고 있었던 것이 아니었을 경우 원물반환 자체가 가능하지 않았다고 볼 여지가 있을 뿐만 아니라, 2008. 8. 29. 이 사건 양도에 따른 매매대금 중에서 그에 대한 양도소득세 등을 공제한 나머지 금액을 유류분 지분에 따라 지급할 수 있도록 하는 조정에 갈음하는 결정이 내려져 그 후 확정되었던 것은, 결국 망 HHH과 원고 BBB, CCC, DDD, 그리고 유류분반환 청구소송을 제기하지는 아니하였지만 그 후속과정에 별다른 이의 없이 참여하였던 원고 EEE와 원고 AAA 사이에 유류분의 반환에 관하여 가액반환을 하기로 하는 협의가 이루어졌던 것으로 볼 수가 있다.

In such a situation, if Plaintiff AA subsequently reported and paid capital gains tax on the transfer of this case, it would be unreasonable to expect the implementation of the tax law knowing that Plaintiff BH, Plaintiff BB, CCC, DD and EE had a duty to separately report capital gains tax on the corresponding portion of the transfer of this case, even though Plaintiff AA reported and paid capital gains tax on the entire transfer of this case, it would be unreasonable to deem that Plaintiff AA had not been involved in the transfer of this case, and that it would be impossible to return originals, through mediation, to receive the return of value on the premise of the transfer of this case.

Ultimately, even in cases where the obligation to report capital gains tax pursuant to the transfer of this case is recognized as a result, it is inevitable to view that there is a justifiable reason for not being negligent in performing the obligation.

3. Conclusion

If so, on the different premise as above, the disposition of this case by the Defendants must be revoked in an unlawful manner, and the judgment of the court of first instance differs from this conclusion, so it is so decided as per Disposition by cancelling the judgment of the court of first instance and cancelling the disposition of this case.