early 2009west0204 ( October 16, 2009)

Appropriateness of the assertion that the acquisition date of the obligation succeeded with the transfer of real property is the time of the transfer.

It is reasonable to see that the date of receipt of real estate registration is the time of transfer because it is difficult to see that the obligation has been actually taken over, and the content and date of acceptance of the obligation are not verified by specific evidence.

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

Man Doz 300

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 132,836,290 to the Plaintiff on October 24, 2008 shall be revoked.

쇠지지鹬 u3000

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership in its name on June 26, 1980 with respect to AAAB BB-dong 426-3 282.9 square meters, and on the 426-3 2nd floor building on March 2, 1995 with respect to the 426-3nd floor.

나. 그후 원고의 소유인 '서울 AA구 BB동 426-3 대 282.9㎡ 및 그 지상 2층 건물'(이하 '이 사건 부동산'이라 한다)에 관하여는 2003. 7. 25. 주식회사 ○○○○○○○○(구 주식회사 ★★★★★★, 이하 '소외 회사'라 한다) 명의로 2002. 12. 27.자 매매를 원인으로 하여 소유권이전등기가 되었다.

다. 이 사건 부동산에 관하여 소외 회사로 위 소유권이전등기가 마쳐질 때 이 사건 부동산에 관하여는 채무자 주식회사 ◎◎◎◎◎◎(이하 '◎◎◎◎◎◎'이라 한다), 근저 당권자 주식회사 ◆◆은행(이하 '◆◆은행'이라 한다), 채권최고액 1억 3천만원 및 3억 9천만원인 2건의 근저당권설정등기가 경료되어 있었다.

D. Around June 1, 2001, the Plaintiff’s spouse EF acquired “three-story neighborhood living facilities and housing” located in Seoul AAB Dong 423-3, and owned it on March 31, 2003.

E. According to Article 89 subparagraph 3 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6557 of Dec. 31, 2001), Article 154 (1), (3), and Article 155 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17555 of Mar. 30, 2002), and Article 154 (3) subparagraph 1 of the Addenda of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17555 of Mar. 30, 200), in relation to the ownership of "three-story neighborhood living facilities and housing located in Seoul AAAB Dong 423-3 of the 203-3 residential facilities", capital gains tax is not imposed on the Plaintiff.

F. On October 24, 2008, the Defendant issued the instant disposition to rectify and notify the Plaintiff of KRW 132,836,290 of the transfer income tax reverted to 2003, on the ground that “the special housing case for one household” is not applicable since the time of transfer of ownership should be regarded as July 25, 2003, which was the date of receiving the transfer of ownership transfer registration, because the date of liquidation is not clear.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, 2-1, 2-2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5, 10, 18, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Party’s assertion and issues

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

원고는 2002. 12. 27. 소외 회사와 사이에 이 사건 부동산에 관하여 매매대금 5억 8천만원에 매매계약을 체결하였는데, 계약금 5천만원은 지급받았고, 잔금을 대신하여 이 사건 부동산에 관한 3천만원의 임대차보증금반환채무와 5억원의 근저당권부채무를 소외 회사가 인수하기로 하여 2003. 1. 31. 근저당권자인 ◆◆은행 EE대역지점과 사 이에 채무인수를 마쳤다. 따라서 이 사건 부동산의 양도시기는 대금을 청산한 날인 2003. 1. 31.로 보아야 하므로 이 사건 부동산의 양도에 관하여는 '1세대 1주택의 특례'가 적용되어 양도소득세가 부과되어서는 아나 된다.

(2) The defendant's assertion

Since it is difficult to see that the acceptance of the obligation to collateral security was completed on January 31, 2003 with respect to the instant real estate, the transfer of the instant real estate constitutes “where the date of settlement of the price is unclear”, the transfer time shall be deemed as July 25, 2003, which is the date of receipt of the transfer registration.

(3) The issues of the instant case

The transfer income tax is not imposed on the case where the instant real estate was transferred on or before March 30, 2003 because the "special case for one house for one household" is fit. The issue of the instant case is whether the acquisition of the collateral collateral obligation with respect to the instant real estate was completed on January 31, 2003 and the date the price was settled" can be seen as "the date the payment was settled."

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) The date of settlement means, in principle, the date of full payment of the transaction price, but includes the date on which the full payment was made to the extent that it is deemed to have been almost paid by social norms even if the full payment was not made (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Nu8609, Jul. 11, 1989). If the date of assumption of an obligation is obvious, the date of assumption of an obligation shall be

(2) According to the evidence No. 1, No. 2, No. 10, and No. 7 with respect to the instant case, the following facts are found: (a) the real estate sales contract of December 27, 2002 with respect to the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) stated that ① 5.8 million won with respect to the sales price, ② 50 million won with due payment on December 27, 2002, ③ 5.3 billion won with due payment on May 28, 2003 shall be succeeded to bank loans; and (b) this sales contract was approved by the head of AA of Seoul Special Metropolitan City on June 16, 2003; and (c) the non-party company remitted 50 million won to the Plaintiff on December 31, 2002 with due approval seal affixed by the head of the Si/Gun, etc.; and (d) it shall be presumed that the contract was prepared as stated in the contract No. 931,94.

이에 대하여 원고는, 이 사건 매매계약서와 달리 2003. 1. 31 원고와 피고, ◆◆은행 EE대역지점과 사이에 이 사건 부동산에 관한 각 근저당권부채무의 인수를 마침으로써 이 사건 부동산의 양도와 관련하여 잔금을 청산하였다고 주장하므로 살피건대, 갑 제6, 7호증의 각 기재에 의하면, 원고, 피고와 ◎◎◎◎◎◎ 사이에 2003. 1. 31. 작 성된 협약서에는 "이 사건 부동산에 관한 세입자 보증금 3천만원과 ◆◆은행 EE대역 지점 대출금 5억원의 채무는 매수인이 승계하는 것으로 매매계약 잔금지급에 갈음한다 는 내용이 있고 ◆◆은행 EE대역지점이 입회인으로 기재되어 있는 사실, 소외 회사가 2003. 2. 작성한 이행각서는 5억원에 대하여 소외 회사가 채무이행의무를 다할 것을 ◆◆은행 EE대역지점에 약속한다 는 내용인 사실이 인정되나, 다른 한편, 갑 제4호증, 갑 제17호증의 1, 2, 갑 제18호증의 1, 2, 을 제14, 16호증, 을 제19호증의 1 의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 더하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 위 협약서에 찍힌 ◆◆은행 EE대역지점의 인장이 '2003. 5. 30.자 대출금액확인서'상 ◆◆은행 EE대역지점의 인장과 다른 점, 이 사건 부동산에 관한 위 각 근저당권의 피담보채무가 2003. 1. 31. 기준으로 647,200,000원인 점, ◎◎◎◎◎◎은 2003. 3. 17.부터 2004. 6. 15.까지 사이에도 ◆◆은행 EE대역지점에 위 각 근저당권의 피담보채무와 관련한 이자 등을 계속 지급한 점, 소외 회사가 2003. 1. 31.부터 2003. 7. 25.까지 사이에 우리 은행에 위 각 근저당권의 피담보채무를 상환하였다는 자료가 없는 점, 원고가 2003. 7. 작성한 '간이과세자 부가가치세 확정신고서'에는 ◎◎◎◎◎◎에 대한 임대차보증금이 2억원으로 기재된 점, 원고가 2008. 10. 작성한 '양도소득과세표준 기한 후 신고'에는 이 사건 부동산의 양도일자를 2003. 5. 28.로 기재한 점 등에 비추어 보면, 위 협약서 와 이행각서만으로는 2003. 1. 31. 원고, 피고와 ◆◆은행 EE대역지점과 사이에 이 사건 부동산에 관한 근저당권부채무의 인수가 모두 마쳐졌다고 보기 어렵고, 위 협약서와 이행각서에 갑 제11, 23호증의 각 기재 및 증인 문HH, 양PP, 김YY의 각 증 언 등 나머지 부합증거들을 더하여 살펴보아도 이를 인정하기 부족하며 달리 인정할 증거가 없다.

Ultimately, regarding the instant real estate, it is difficult to deem that the acceptance of the right to collateral security obligation was completed on January 31, 2003, and it is also unclear as to the assumption date of the obligation. Therefore, the volume of the instant real estate constitutes “where it is unclear as to the date of the settlement of the price.”

(3) Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition that deemed the time of the transfer of the instant real estate as July 25, 2003, which was the date of receipt of the ownership transfer registration, is legitimate, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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