The time when the land in this case is transferred;

The time of attribution of the transfer income of this case is 2013.

2016Gudan1640 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

KimA

port of origin

November 18, 2016

on 13, 2010

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The disposition of imposition of KRW 561,249,470 (including additional tax) to the Plaintiff on November 2, 2015 by the Defendant of the Gu office against the Plaintiff on November 2, 2015 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 16, 2002, the Plaintiff acquired a forest land of 36-19 m2, 531 m2,000 m2, CC-Gu DB-si, Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

B. Meanwhile, the said land was designated as the land transaction permission zone on November 30, 2001, and was released from the land transaction permission zone on January 30, 2009.

C. The Plaintiff sold 4,628.11 square meters of the above land (hereinafter “instant land”) totaling KRW 1.925 billion to KimE, KimF, G, Park G, Cho HH, Jeju II, LJ, HuK (hereinafter “GGE”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer for reasons of sale on May 3, 2013, 6, including KimE, and six others.

D. However, when the Plaintiff reported the transfer income tax on the instant land on May 3, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,476,271 of the transfer income tax, alleging that the Plaintiff transferred the instant land to KimE and six others from around 2003 to 2004, and received the payment in full.

E. As a result of the investigation of capital gains tax on the Plaintiff, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the date of liquidation of the purchase price of the instant land is unclear; (b) deemed that May 3, 2013, the date of registration of ownership transfer of the instant land was the date of transfer, and determined and notified the Plaintiff of the transfer income tax of 561,249,476 won (including additional tax) for the transfer income tax for the year 2013.

F. The Plaintiff filed a tax review claim on January 26, 2016, but was dismissed on April 14, 2016. [Grounds for recognition] The entry of evidence No. 1 and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff sold the instant land to the Kim E-E et al. on or around July 5, 2004 and received all of the sales proceeds. In other words, the Plaintiff sold part of May 31, 2004 to Kim E-E at KRW 175 million, and paid KRW 55 million as the contract-based down payment on June 14, 2004, KRW 70 million as the intermediate payment on June 14, 2004, and KRW 50 million as the remainder on July 5, 2004. Part of December 10, 2004 as the contract-based down payment, KRW 60 million as the contract-based down payment, and KRW 50 million as the remainder on December 31, 2004.

The Plaintiff received KRW 80,000,000 from 2.4 billion to 3.5 billion, the remainder of KRW 2.5 billion on March 2, 2005, and KRW 2.5 billion on March 2, 2005, and sold KRW 18,500,000 to 3.5 billion on March 16, 2005, KRW 200,000,000 for an intermediate payment of KRW 2.5 billion on April 8, 2005, and was paid KRW 500,000 to 3.5 billion on May 13, 2005, part of KRW 200,000 for an intermediate payment of KRW 14,500,000,000 for KRW 5 billion on June 21, 2005, and was sold to 3.5 billion on March 16, 2005.

B. Determination

Unless there is a dispute between the parties that the Plaintiff sold the instant land to EE and 6 others and completed the registration of ownership transfer for reasons of sale on January 25, 2013, 2013, barring any special circumstance, it can be presumed that the instant land was transferred on May 3, 2013. In other words, the Plaintiff’s real estate sales contract and receipt submitted by the Plaintiff is difficult to objectively specify the time of preparation, and most of the financial materials for payment of the purchase price were deposited from the Plaintiff’s account, not from the Plaintiff’s account, and most of them were deposited into the Plaintiff’s account on May 3, 2013. The Plaintiff and EEE and 6 non-party were not subject to land transaction permission from 20 years to 20 years after the termination of the registration of ownership transfer for the instant land transaction permission from 20 years to 30 years after the cancellation of the registration of ownership transfer for 20 years from 20 years to 40 years from 20 years from 20, respectively.

3. Conclusion

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