logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.12.13 2017노1375
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(조세)
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a year and six months, and a fine of KRW 833,00,000.

The defendant above.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1) The Defendant, as indicated in the crime inundation list as indicated in the lower judgment (hereinafter “instant building”), was only the owner of the relevant building or the original seller upon receiving a request for the sale by proxy, and acquired proceeds from the sale, and did not acquire gains from the transfer by again selling the instant building to a third party after purchasing it.

Therefore, the court below found the defendant guilty of the charges of this case on the ground that the defendant's purchase of the building of this case did not complete the registration of transfer of ownership in his own name and immediately completed the registration of transfer of ownership from the seller to the third buyer constitutes the resale of unregistered registration, and that this constitutes the purpose of evading taxes on gains from transfer.

2) Although the Defendant entered into a contract with M et al. selling agency contract with the original seller, it is due to the fact that there was no standardized sales agency contract at the time, and the Defendant did not actually pay the amount indicated in the column of each sales contract. The amount indicated in the column of sales price is merely a statement of deposit to the owner of each sales contract, and the parties to the contract did not think the Defendant as the buyer.

3) Generally, the unregistered resale of real estate is a phenomenon that appeared at the time when the real estate competition is good. Since the building of this case was made by the owner or the original seller but it was not sold in lots, the owner or the original seller made efforts to sell the building of this case, and thus, the Defendant requested the sale in lots to the Defendant. Thus, there was no reason for the Defendant to purchase the building of this case with the intent to keep profits from the market price by

4) The Defendant entered into an agency contract for sale of the instant building on a certain date per each household when entering into such contract.

arrow