early 2009 Heavy094 (2009.04.09)

Actual transaction price of a real estate sales contract

Although a sales contract concerning the acquisition and transfer of actual transaction values, a transaction certificate and a certificate of personal seal impression, etc. of the contracting party were submitted, the contract confirmed by the tax authority from the transferee shall be deemed a true contract consistent with the actual transaction

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 imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 4,993.00 on October 1, 2008 against the plaintiff on October 1, 2008 is revoked (the written complaint seems to be written in writing on October 7, 2008).

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

가. 원고는 ☆☆2상가조합(조합장 : 남★★, 이하 '이 사건 조합'이라고 하고, 원고를 포함한 그 조합원들을 '원고 등'이라고 한다)의 조합원이다. 원고 등은 2000. 3. 31. 한 국토지공사로부터 생활대책용지로 공급받은 수원시 ○○구 ☆☆동 3006-3 대(일반상업 용지) 1,148㎡(이하 '이 사건 토지'라고 한다)를 1,283,460,000원에 매수하는 내용의 용지매매계약을 체결하고, 같은 날 한국토지공사에게 계약금 128,346,000원을 지급하였다.

B. On April 23, 200, the Plaintiff, etc. sold to KimA the right to acquire the instant land from the Korea Land Corporation (hereinafter “the right to sell the instant land”). Under the premise that the right to sell the instant land was transferred to KimA in KRW 210.00,000, the Plaintiff reported the transfer income tax on June 23, 200 with the transfer value of KRW 6,120,000 corresponding to its shares among the instant land, on the premise that the right to sell the instant land was transferred to KimA.

C. On October 1, 2008, the Defendant, in fact, transferred to KimA KRW 448,346,00 of the Plaintiff’s share in KRW 13,586,00 (=448,346,000 + 6/198, and less than KRW 6/198) as the transfer value, and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 4,93,000 of the transfer income tax for the year 2000 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On December 19, 2008, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the instant disposition, but was dismissed on April 9, 2009.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 4-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Around December 2003, the Defendant issued the instant disposition based on the sales contract (No. 13, the sales price of which is KRW 448,346,00; hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant’s side contract”). However, on June 23, 2000, upon reporting the transfer income tax from the transfer of the instant sales right, the Plaintiff entered the sales contract (No. 6, the sales price of KRW 210,000; hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff’s side contract”) and the Plaintiff’s real estate transaction confirmation certificate (the sales price of KRW 210,00,000) and the Plaintiff’s real estate transaction certificate (the sales price of KRW 210,00,000) of KimA, the opposite contractual party, in comparison with the Plaintiff’s side contract and the Defendant’s side contract, the Defendant’s name and the broker of the instant contract are also written differently from the Plaintiff’s office’s address or broker in the form of the instant transaction.

(2) The instant disposition was conducted subsequent to the lapse of the exclusion period for national taxes of five years.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

(1) Facts of recognition

The following facts shall not be disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 11, Gap evidence No. 13, 14, Eul evidence No. 4-1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 5-1, 2, and Eul evidence No. 6:

(A) The main content of a land sales contract concluded between the Plaintiff, etc. and the Korea Land Corporation for the instant land is as follows.

(B) The comparison between the principal part of the contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s contract is as set out in the following table.

(C) On May 18, 200, the Korea Land Corporation agreed to change the purchaser’s name of the instant land to KimA at the request of the Plaintiff, etc., and notified the tax office of the same day that the purchaser’s name has been changed.

(D) From the △△ Bank’s account, △△△ Bank account, the husband of Kim A, her husband, 50,300,000 won and KRW 100,000,000 respectively were withdrawn on April 22, 200 and April 27, 200, respectively. Around May 16, 2000, the amount of KRW 284,346,000 were withdrawn in cash around 10:25:00 on May 16, 200.

(E) On August 30, 200, KimA sold the instant parcelling-out right to AB to AB, and completed a report of capital gains tax of KRW 210,00,000, transfer value of KRW 260,000,000, transfer value of KRW 50,000. As a result of the investigation into KimA, KimA made a report of capital gains tax of KRW 320,00,000 to the Plaintiff, etc., and it was confirmed that KimA acquired the instant parcelling-out right in KRW 448,346,00, and sold the instant amount of KRW 896,540,00 to AB with the premium of KRW 896,540,00. On February 11, 2005, the head of the Ansan District Tax Office imposed capital gains tax of KRW 601,287,500,00 on the Plaintiff, etc. and imposed capital gains tax of KRW 601,2892.

(f) The KimA made a statement to the following purport through the statement prepared on January 12, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant statement”).

- 김AA은 2000. 3.경 부동산 중개인인 김□□으로부터 이 사건 분양권을 소개받고 수원시 △△역 근처 및 ■■동 근처 다방에서 조합장 남★★, 조합총무, 김□□과 함께 수차례 만남을 가졌다.

- 1개월간의 매매금액 조정을 거쳐 권리금을 320,000,000원으로 하고 토지공사 계약금 128,346,000원을 합하여 총매매대금을 448,346,000원으로 하기로 합의하였다. ■■동 소재 다방에서 조합장, 조합총무, 김AA, 이◎◎, 김□□이 모여 김□□이 원본 계약서(피고 측 계약서)를 작성하였다. 원본은 김□□이 가져갔고, 김AA은 사본을 받았다.

- The contract was abolished at the time of the remainder payment and agreed to re-preparation the transport contract with the purchase price of 210,000,000 including the land construction contract deposit for the report of transfer income tax.

- KimA withdrawn 50,000,000 won as check on April 22, 200 and April 27, 2000, from △△ Bank account of △△○○○○ on the following day, and paid the down payment and the balance as the down payment on each following day. On May 16, 2000, the cash withdrawn from the above account was paid as 284,346,000 won in addition to 14,00,000 won in cash held by himself.

- After the payment of the balance, the original contract was discarded and the contract was written, and even at that time, Kim Jong-ri is not an memory for the preparation of the contract.

(사) 원고 등과 김AA이 이 사건 분양권을 매매할 당시, 이 사건 조합의 조합장 남★★가 거주하던 곳의 주소는 수원시 ○○구 ■■동 597-29 ▲▲빌라 2동 401호이고, 김AA이 실제 거주하던 곳의 주소는 수원시 ○○구 ▽▽동 886-1 두견마을 현대벽산 아파트 334동 107호이다.

(2) Judgment on the first proposal

(A) In a case where a sales contract concerning acquisition and transfer, transaction confirmation and certificate of personal seal impression, etc. are submitted as evidence of actual transaction value, the tax authority should calculate gains on transfer based on the actual transaction price under each of the above sales contract, barring special circumstances, such as that each of the above sales contracts was prepared differently from the actual transaction price. In such a case, the tax authority should only prove that such special circumstances exist (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Du6459, May 28, 2002).

(B) According to the evidence Nos. 4, 6 through 10, and 2, the Plaintiff reported the transfer income tax following the transfer of the instant sales right, and submitted the Plaintiff, etc. a certificate of real estate transaction under the name of the Plaintiff, etc. and KimA’s certificate of personal seal impression, etc. (Evidence No. 7, 210,000,000) and KimA’s certificate of real estate transaction under the name of the Plaintiff, etc., consistent with the Plaintiff’s contract and its content. However, in full view of the following circumstances known from the above fact, the Plaintiff’s contract was prepared differently from the actual transaction, and it is reasonable to deem the Defendant’s contract as a true contract that

First, in relation to the Plaintiff’s contract, 50,300,000 won and 100,000,000 won corresponding to the amount of the down payment and intermediate payment stated in the Plaintiff’s on the part of the Plaintiff’s contract are withdrawn from the bank account in the name of her husband on the date of the remainder payment, and 284,346,000 won exceeding the remainder 60,000 won on the day of the remainder payment, were withdrawn from the bank account in the same bank account, and withdrawal of the total amount of money from the bank in cash is extremely exceptional. In addition, if the amount of cash withdrawal was made from the Plaintiff’s land payment to the Korea Land Corporation at the time of the payment of the purchase money, it appears that the Plaintiff’s right to purchase was more consistent with the Plaintiff’s statement that the purchase money was actually made for the purpose of distributing in cash, including the down payment on the part of the Plaintiff’s land in Korea, and it appears that the Plaintiff’s statement and statement were more consistent with the Plaintiff’s statement.

반면, 피고 측 계약서는 그 특약사항에 '조합원 전체의 합의'나 '조합장 외 임원 전체의 동의'로 매매를 약정한다거나, 이 사건 분양권의 분양자인 한국토지공사(토지개발공사는 한국토지공사를 지칭하는 것으로 보인다.)에 대한 수분양자 명의변경을 매도인, 즉 원고 등의 책임으로 이행한다고 명시하고 있는 등 원고 측 계약서보다 구체적으로 계약내용을 정해 놓고 있는 점, 원고 등이 한국토지공사와 체결한 용지매매계약에는 원고 등이 지정용도인 일반상업용지로 사용하기 전에 한국토지공사의 동의 없이 타인에게 이 사건 토지를 양도한 경우 계약을 해제할 수 있도록 되어 있어 이 사건 분양권의 매도에 있어 위와 같은 수분양자 명의변경 여부는 계약의 성립 및 이행과 관련하여 가장 중요한 부분이라고 할 수 있는 점, 피고 측 계약서의 매도인란에 기재된 남★★의 주소 중 지번이 실제 지번과 다르게 되어 있으나 이처럼 잘못 기재된 지번이 원고 등과 한국토지공사 사이에 체결된 용지매매계약서에도 그대로 나타나 있다는 점에서 이는 단순한 오기에 불과한 것으로 보이고, 중개업자 김□□의 사무실 주소가 원고 측 계약서와 다르게 기재되어 있다는 사정만으로 피고 측 계약서가 위조된 것이라고 단정할 수는 없는 점(오히려 원고 측 계약서에 매수인인 김AA의 주소 중 지번이 잘못 기재되어 있다.), 김AA은 피고 측 계약서에 기재된 잔금 지급일 이전에 원고 등에게 잔금을 지급하였고, 원고 등이 이를 별다른 이의 없이 수령한 것으로 보이는데, 앞서 본 바와 같이 피고 측 계약서에 기재된 매매대금 전액이 원고 등에게 지급된 이상 피고 측 계약서상 잔금 지급일과 실제 잔금 지급일의 차이는 피고 측 계약서의 진정성을 다툴 만한 사정으로 보기는 어려운 점, 김AA은 당초 원고 측 계약서에 기재된 바와 같이 이 사건 분양권을 210,000,000원에 취득한 것으로 하여 양도소득세 신고를 하였다가 그로부터 4년 가까운 시간이 경과한 후 과세관청으로부터 세무조사를 받게 되자 비로소 피고 측 계약서가 실지거래내역에 부합하는 계약서라며 이를 제출하였는데, 만약 김AA이 피고 측 계약서를 위조한 것이라면, 계약당사자 등에 관하여 원고 측 계약서에 기재된 그대로 기재하면 될 것이지 굳이 남★★와 김□□의 주소 중 지번만을 원고 측 계약서에 기재된 것과 다르게 하지는 않았을 것으로 보이고, 나아가 김AA으로서는 쉽게 알 수 없었을 것으로 보이는 원고 등과 한국토지공사 사이에 작성된 용지매매계약서에 잘못 기재된 남★★의 주소지 지번(■■동 597-19)이 피고 측 계약서에도 그대로 기재되어 있는 것을 쉽사리 설명하기 어려운 점 등의 사정을 종합해 보면, 피고 측 계약서는 김AA에 의하여 위조된 것이 아니라 실지거래가액을 뒷받침하는 진실한 계약서라고 봄이 옳다.

Therefore, it cannot be said that the Defendant calculated capital gains tax on the Plaintiff on the premise that the sales price of the instant sales right is KRW 448,346,000. The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

(3) Judgment on the second ground

Article 26-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 9263 of Dec. 26, 2008) provides that when a taxpayer evades a national tax, or obtains a refund or deduction by fraudulent or other unlawful means, the exclusion period of imposition of the national tax shall apply for the ten-year period from the date on which the national tax may be imposed. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff shall be deemed to have evaded a national tax, such as transfer income tax, by fraudulent or other unlawful acts, such as submitting a false contract which is different from the actual transaction price to the tax authority as documentary evidence. As such, the exclusion period of imposition of transfer income tax on the transfer of the right to sell the instant land is ten years. The instant disposition was made within the ten-year period from the date on which the transfer income tax on the transfer of the right to sell the instant land was imposed after the lapse of the exclusion period. The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

(4) Ultimately, the disposition of this case is lawful.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim for objection case is without merit, it is so decided as per Disposition.