Seocho 209west 3310 ( November 26, 2009)

Whether the purchase price has been settled before the date of designation of the land speculation area;

Although the time of transfer is claimed to be prior to the date of designation of the speculative zone because the remaining price was converted into a monetary loan for consumption before the date of designation of the speculative zone, it is merely equivalent to the appearance of liquidation of the purchase price of land

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

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 670,749,060 for the Plaintiff on July 1, 2009 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. A. Around February 4, 2005, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with EA with respect to the purchase price of KRW 31,405 square meters for the total or total area of each of the lands, such as BB Ri 5-3 forest land, BB Ri 580-2 forest land, BB Ri 580-2 of the same Ri, 581 of the same Ri, 582 of the same Ri, 583 of the same Ri, and 700-2 of the same Ri (hereinafter “the instant land”), and the intermediate payment of KRW 400 million on March 11, 2005, and the intermediate payment of KRW 1.29 billion on May 27, 2005.

B. On August 30, 2005, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff transferred the instant land to thisA on June 29, 2005, and calculated capital gains tax amount as KRW 233,880,602 based on the standard market price with the acquisition value and transfer value as the standard market price, and made a preliminary return of capital gains tax for the year 2005.

C. Around January 1, 2009, the Defendant conducted a tax investigation on the Plaintiff on July 1, 2009. The Defendant: (a) deemed the transfer date of the instant land to be December 15, 2005, which was designated as the land speculation area on June 30, 2005; and (b) calculated the tax amount based on the actual transaction price by calculating the acquisition value and transfer value as the actual transaction price; and (c) issued the instant disposition of imposition, which corrected and imposed KRW 670,749,060, which was the capital gains tax for the year 2005, after deducting KRW 232,537,370, paid by the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 2-1 to 4, Evidence No. 10-1, Evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Since the Plaintiff was actually paid KRW 1.469 billion from thisA on June 29, 2005, the transfer date of the instant land shall be June 29, 2005, and thus, the transfer income tax amount of the instant land should be calculated as the standard market price, although the Defendant deemed the transfer date of the instant land to be the date of designation as the land speculation area and calculated the transfer income tax amount of the instant land as the actual market price, the instant disposition was unlawful.

(2) Even if the purchase and sale price of the instant land cannot be deemed to have been actually paid on June 29, 2005, the Plaintiff and thisA may be deemed to have agreed to change the said purchase and sale price to a loan for consumption on June 29, 2005. Thus, the transfer price of the instant land shall be deemed to have been liquidated under the provisions of General Rules 98-1 of the Income Tax Act, which is the alteration date of a loan for consumption, and the disposition of this case, which was otherwise reported by the Defendant, is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) If the Plaintiff did not yet obtain the land transaction permission, etc. for the instant land within the land transaction permission zone, and was not paid KRW 1.469 billion from the Plaintiff, it was decided on June 27, 2005 to designate 22 areas, including the discharge of the land at Yangju, where the instant land is located, as the land speculation zone, and on June 30, 2005, the said decision was publicly announced.

(2) On June 29, 2005, at the point of Sk room five CC Bank, the Plaintiff remitted 1.46 billion won to the CC bank account of this 13 p.m. 27 p.m. on the same day, and this A transferred the same amount to the CC bank account of this 13 p.m. 29 p.m. on the same day.

"(3) The loan certificate dated June 29, 2005 under the name of thisA (hereinafter "the loan certificate of this case") borrowed 1.46 billion won from the plaintiff as of June 29, 2005 from the commercial bank interest rate and the due date for payment until June 30, 2006, and thisA provides the plaintiff with three parcels of real estate, including DD 257-3, Dong Dong-dong 257-3, etc., which are owned by thisA, as security for the above loan obligation. After that, this Section does not have created a security right to three parcels of real estate, such as the above DD 257-3, etc., in fact, to the plaintiff." (4) this Section delivered a check to the plaintiff on December 15, 2005, with the face value of 1.4 billion won, issued by EE Bank on June 30, 2006.

(5) On February 27, 2006, thisA obtained approval from the two main markets for the establishment of an industrial cooling and freezing equipment manufacturing factory for the instant land. On March 29, 2006, the Plaintiff obtained permission from the two main markets for a land transaction contract on March 31, 2006, and completed the ownership transfer registration for the instant land to thisA on March 31, 2006.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 3-1 through 5, Evidence Nos. 4 and 5-2, Evidence Nos. 12, and Nos. 2 and 3

Evidence Nos. 4-1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 5-1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) As to the plaintiff's first argument

(A) According to the provisions of Article 96(1) of the former Income Tax Act, the transfer value of land and buildings shall be based on the standard market price at the time of the transfer of the relevant assets, or where the land, etc. within the designated area under subparagraph 6-2 of the same Article is transferred, based on the actual transaction price. Meanwhile, Article 98 of the former Income Tax Act and Article 162(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act stipulate the time of transfer

(B) Therefore, since the criteria for calculation of the transfer tax amount of this case vary depending on whether the time of the transfer of the instant land was before or after the designated date of the land speculation zone, the following is examined as to the time of the transfer of the instant land.

In light of the circumstances revealed in the above, ① the Plaintiff’s actual transaction contract of this case on June 27, 2005 and the actual transaction price of this case was KRW 1.469 billion on June 30, 2005; ② the Plaintiff’s exchange of the above KRW 1.460 million on June 29, 2005 through the bank account at intervals of KRW 1.6 billion on June 29, 2005 and KRW 1.6 billion on June 30, 2005, the Plaintiff’s actual transaction price of this case was KRW 1.6 billion on June 30, 2005 and KRW 1.6 billion on June 30, 2005, and there were no concerns that the Plaintiff’s actual transaction price was paid to the Plaintiff on June 29, 2005.

(2) As to the second argument by the Plaintiff

The term "if the balance is changed to a loan for consumption" under the General Rule 98-1 (2) of the Income Tax Act refers to a quasi-loan for consumption under Article 605 of the Civil Act, as it is agreed to convert the obligation to pay the balance to the transferor as a loan for consumption.

Therefore, we examine whether there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and thisA to convert the remaining purchase and sale amount of KRW 1.469 billion to the loan obligation for consumption on June 29, 2005. According to the above, the loan certificate of this case was prepared on June 29, 2005 by the agreement between the Plaintiff and thisA for the purpose of the loan for consumption, and it is difficult to see that the act of making the above appearance of the Plaintiff and thisA was made for the purpose of viewing that it was an actual transaction relationship. The above evidence alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff and this case agreed to convert the remaining purchase price of KRW 1.469 billion into the loan obligation of KRW 1.49 billion to the loan for consumption on June 29, 2005, and there is no other evidence to support this otherwise. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

(3) Ultimately, the instant disposition that the Defendant calculated the transfer income tax amount of the instant land based on the actual transaction price pursuant to Article 96(1)6-2 of the former Income Tax Act by deeming the transfer time of the instant land as December 15, 2005, which was after the date of the designation of the speculative area.

3. Conclusion

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