Early High Court Decision 2008J 3428 (Law No. 15, 2010)

with independent rights and supervision over the whole process of land transaction, and constitutes an actual purchaser.

In order to purchase land, the Plaintiff is a party to a transaction independently under his/her own account and risk burden, such as preparing a sales contract with a seller for the purchase of land and paying a balance with a loan borrowed in the Plaintiff’s name, and is in charge of the entire land transaction. As such, the Plaintiff constitutes the actual

2011Guhap1188 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

XX Kim

O Head of tax office

August 11, 2011

September 8, 2011

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 269,625,80 for the Plaintiff on June 9, 2008 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

가. XX리 마을회(이하 '마을회'라고만 한다) 소유이던 충남 XX군 XX면 XX리 산 0-0 임야 4,781㎡(이하 '이 사건 제1토지'라 한다)에 관하여 2002. 8. 19. 박AA 명의로, 같은 리 산 0-0 임야 508㎡(이하 '이 사건 제2토지'라 한다)에 관하여 같은 날 김BB 명의로, 같은 리 산 0-00 임야 124,318㎡(이하 '이 사건 제3토지'라 한다)에 관하여 같은 날 신CC ・ 원DD ・ 김EE ・ 강FF ・ 이GG ・ 진HH ・ 윤JJ ・ 이KK ・ 배LL ・ 나MM ・ 남NN ・ 장OO ・ 김PP ・ 류QQ ・ 신RR ・ 이SS ・ 이TT ・ 임UU(위 18명의 매수인 각자의 공유 지분 표시는 생략) 명의로, 같은 리 산 0-0 임야 48,694㎡ (이하 '이 사건 제4토지'라 한다)에 관하여 같은 날 신CC ・ 최VV ・ 민WW ・ 임XX ・ 김YY ・ 정ZZ ・ 이SS 명의로, 같은 리 산 9 임야 39,868㎡(이하 '이 사건 제5토지' 라 하고, 위 각 토지를 모두 합쳐서 '이 사건 토지'라 한다)에 관하여 같은 날 조△△ ・ 조□□ ・ 이◇◇ ・ 장▽▽ 명의로 각 2002. 6. 30. 매매를 원인으로 한 소유권이전등기가 마쳐졌다.

B. Meanwhile, on August 14, 2002, the registration of transfer of ownership was completed on May 28, 2002 under the Plaintiff’s name as to the same 0-0 m3, 285,917 m3, 46,972 m3, 00 m3,000 m3,000 m3,000 m3,000 m3,000 m3,000 m3,000 m3,000 m3,000 m3,00 m3,000 m3,00 m3

C. On May 28, 2002, the Defendant purchased the instant land and the neighboring land of this case to the Village Association totaling KRW 1.4 billion (the Defendant calculated the acquisition price of the instant land in proportion to the total purchase price by unit price in the standard market price and calculated the acquisition price of the instant land as KRW 366,622,793) based on the sales contract executed between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff and the Seoul Special Self-Governing Province, the representative of the Village Association, on June 9, 2008, based on which May 28, 2002 concerning the instant land and the neighboring land of this case were located, and notified the Plaintiff of the decision of KRW 1,23,00,000 in total to the NewCC, etc. on the ground that the Plaintiff purchased the instant land in proportion to the total purchase price by unit price in the standard market price (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On September 5, 2008, the Plaintiff appealed to the Tax Tribunal. On September 15, 2010, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision that "the Tax Tribunal partially accepted the Plaintiff's above request on September 15, 2010 and corrected the tax base and tax amount by 1 billion won."

E. Accordingly, on November 1, 2010, the Defendant decided and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 269,625,80 of the transfer income tax reverted to the year 2002.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3 (including branch numbers), Eul evidence No. 1-1, 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff, along with NewCC and BBB, agreed to purchase the neighboring land of this case to the Village Association, the NewCC decided to purchase both the land of this case and the land of this case 1 through 4, respectively, and concluded a sales contract with the △△△△△, a representative of the Village Association, as the purchaser representative of the Village Association for convenience. Therefore, the Plaintiff was not the actual purchaser of the land of this case, and the Defendant’s disposition of this case premised on this is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Facts of recognition

(1) On February 10, 2002, the Plaintiff drafted a sales contract with the Village Association to purchase the instant land, the neighboring land, and the land of Chungcheongnam-Nam-Nam-Nam-gun in total at KRW 1,708,00,00,000, in total, the total amount of KRW 1,200,000 with respect to the unit price for each land, and KRW 40,000 for the instant land, KRW 30,000 for the instant land, KRW 40,000 for the instant land, KRW 50,000 for the instant land, KRW 50,000 for the instant neighboring land, KRW 50,00 for the instant neighboring land, KRW 20,000 for the land of KRW 0,000 for each land.

(2) 한편 원고는 2002. 3. 20. 신CC에게 이 사건 제3토지 중 17,670평을 353,400,000원(평당 단가 20,000원)에 매도하기로 하는 내용의 매매계약서를 작성하였다. 그 후 신CC은 2002. 4. 2. 이GG에게 이 사건 제3토지 중 3,000평을 75,000,000 원(평당 단가 25,000원)에 매도하기로 하는 내용의 매매계약서를 작성하였는데, 매도인 란에 '김▲▲(원고 이름) 대 신CC'이라고, 매수인란에 '이GG'라고 기재되어 있다.

(3) On April 13, 2002, the village association held an extraordinary general meeting and decided to sell the land of this case and its neighboring land except the land of 00-0 out of the land of this case under the sales contract as of February 10, 2002, and delegated the authority to sell the land to the Seoul Special Self-Governing City, the chairperson of the committee.

(4) 원고는 2002. 5. 28. 충남 OO시 OO동에 있는 변호사 손◆◆ 사무실에서 마을회 회장인 안☆☆, 부회장인 서▼▼, 회원인 김■■, 위 변호사 사무실 사무장인 김★★이 참석한 가운데, 마을회와 사이에 이 사건 토지와 이 사건 인근 토지를 합계 14억 원에 매수하기로 하는 내용의 매매계약서(이하 '이 사건 매매계약서'라 한다)를 작성하였는데, 특약사항에는 '매도인은 매수인이 지정하는 제3자에게 소유권이전등기 소요서류를 구비해주기로 한다'고 기재되어 있다. 원고는 같은 날 예금주 안☆☆, 계좌번호 000-00-000000로 된 수산업협동조합 통장으로 계약금 1억 4천만 원을 송금하였다.

(5) From June 29, 200 to August 13, 2002, a total of 860,500,000 won was deposited in the passbook from June 29, 2002 to the fishery cooperative head of the Si/Gun/Gu, the account number of which is KRW 00,000 in the name of the deposit owner under the sales contract of this case. Of these, KRW 286,00,000 was deposited in the name of NewCC, KRW 150,000 in the name of this TU, 10,000,000 in the name of YU, 10,000,000 in the name of the Plaintiff, KRW 50,000 in the name of SS,50,000 in the name of the Plaintiff, 13,000,000 in the name of △△△△,500,000 in the name of the Plaintiff.

"(6) 한편 원고는 2002. 8. 6. 이 사건 제3토지 중 3,000평을 45,000,000원(평당 단가 15,000원)에 매도하기로 하는 내용의 매매계약서를 작성하였는데, 매도인란에 '김▲▲'(원고 이름)라고, 매수인란에 '신RR 외 3인 대 유♤♤'이라고 기재되어 있다.",(7) 원고는 2002. 8. 14. 이 사건 인근 토지를 담보로 제공하고 399,500,000원을 대출받아 안☆☆에게 이 사건 매매계약서상의 매매대금 명목으로 지급하였고, 안☆☆은 그 무렵 충남 XX군 XX읍 YY리에 있는 박♧♧ 법무사 사무실에서 원고를 만나 소유권이전등기에 필요한 서류를 건네주었다.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, 6, 8 (including a Serial number), Eul evidence Nos. 3, 5, 8, 9 (including a Serial number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

In full view of the following circumstances, each of the evidence Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, and 15 (including the serial number) against this conclusion is insufficient to deem the Plaintiff as the actual purchaser of the instant land. Accordingly, the Defendant’s disposition of this case on the ground that the Plaintiff had not sold the instant land, is lawful.

① Generally, who is a party to a contract constitutes a matter of interpretation of the intent of the party involved in the contract, and the interpretation of an expression of intent clearly establishes the objective meaning that the party has given to the expression of intent. Although the expression used in writing is not written, the objective meaning that the party gives to the expression of intent must be reasonably interpreted according to the contents written, regardless of the party’s inner intent, and in cases where a certain content of the contract is written in writing as a disposal document, if the objective meaning of the text is apparent, then the existence and content of the expression of intent shall be recognized as stated in the text, barring special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decisions 96Da16049, Oct. 25, 1996; 200Da72572, May 24, 2002).

이 사건 매매계약서는 원고와 마을회 사이에서만 작성되었고, 이 사건 매매계약서에 매수인이 '김▲▲'(원고 이름)라고만 기재되어 있고, 원고가 실제 매수인이라고 주장 하는 신CC ・ 양●●의 인적사항, 지분표시, 매수인 상호 간의 합의 내용 등이 전혀 기재되어 있지 않다(을 제2호증의 1, 2, 3). 또한 앞서 본 바와 같이 이 사건 매매계약서 작성 당시 원고 ・ 안☆☆ ・ 서▼▼ ・ 김■■ ・ 김★★이 참석하였을 뿐, 신CC ・ 양●●는 참석하지 않았고, 마을회 대표인 안☆☆은 신CC ・ 양●●를 전혀 모르는 사람이라고 진술하였다(을 제3호증). 결국 이 사건 매매계약서의 기재 내용에 따라 원고와 마을회가 그 표시 행위에 부여한 객관적 의미는 이 사건 토지에 관하여 원고를 매수인, 마을회를 매도인으로 하기로 한다고 해석함이 타당하다.

② When determining whether the Plaintiff is a de facto purchaser of the instant land or is acting as a intermediary to arrange the purchase of newCC and two Between the Plaintiff, NewCC and Bright, the following should be comprehensively taken into account: (a) in light of the developments leading up to the transaction; (b) the process of performing the contract by the parties to the transaction; (c) the repayment of the price; and (d) the circumstances after the transaction; (d) whether the actor has the right and duty as an independent trading party; and (e) whether the actor may be deemed to have taken over the risk of arbitrarily disposing of the transferred object under his/her name; and (e)

In order to purchase the land of this case, the Plaintiff consulted with the village association about the subject of the sale and purchase price, etc., after preparing the sales contract of this case, and paid the down payment under the sales contract of this case to the village association on the side of the village association, and paid the balance under the sales contract of this case with a loan from the bank in its own name.

The Plaintiff renounced the Plaintiff’s purchase of the land No. 5 of this case, and the Plaintiff sold part of the land No. 5 of this case to △△△△△ and 3,000,000 won (this is the price lower than KRW 300,000,000,000, which was purchased by the village conference) (Evidence No. 2-1 of this case), and the Plaintiff sold part of the land No. 3 of this case directly to HyR and 3,000 in its own name (Evidence No. 8 of this case) and the ownership transfer registration was completed in the name of MoUU, which is the Plaintiff’s wife (Evidence No. 1-3 of this case), and NewCC sold part of the land No. 3 of this case to this case as the Plaintiff’s agent (Evidence No. 9 of this case). In light of the fact that the Plaintiff had the final obligation to pay the land under this case’s sales contract and had the authority to sell the land to 3,000.

Ultimately, the Plaintiff, as an independent trading party under his own account and risk burden, led to the entire process of transaction of the instant land, so it is sufficient to view the Plaintiff as the actual purchaser of the instant land.

3. Conclusion

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