Chuncheon District Court 201Guhap486 (20 April 2012)

early 2010 Heavy1405 ( December 13, 2010)

No amount determined by the decision of recommending reconciliation shall be deemed the transfer value.

In cases where the parties to a sales contract have reduced the purchase price by using litigation procedures, such as reconciliation recommendation or voluntary mediation, it cannot be seen as "when the transaction or act, etc., which is the grounds for a request for correction, becomes final and conclusive as different by a ruling on the relevant lawsuit," and thus, the argument that the final amount should be recognized as the transfer price cannot

(Chuncheon)Revocation of disposition of revocation of imposition of capital gains tax 2012Nu404

IsaA

Chuncheon Director of the Tax Office

Chuncheon District Court Decision 201Guhap486 Decided April 20, 2012

March 20, 2013

April 3, 2013

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 on December 3, 2009 against the Plaintiff on December 3, 2009 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

This Court's explanation on this case is the same as the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for adding evidence No. 5 to Section 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and this Court's explanation in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the existence of debt 201Gahap511, Chuncheon District Court 201, the Plaintiff and BBC punishment decided to recommend reconciliation with the content that the transfer value of the instant land is 000 won or 000 won (the transfer value of the instant land was determined at least 00 won since the Plaintiff was to receive additional 00 won from BBC loan according to the decision on the recommendation for reconciliation) and the instant disposition that assumes that the transfer value of the instant land is 00 won is 00 won pursuant to Article 45-2 (2) 11 of the Framework Act on National Taxes is unlawful.

B. Determination

1) Legal principles

The purpose of the ex post facto request for correction is to expand the protection of taxpayers' rights by allowing taxpayers to file a request for reduction of the tax base and amount of tax when there is a change in the grounds for calculating the tax base and amount of tax after the establishment of the tax liability. In this context, "when a transaction or act, etc. under Article 45-2 (2) 1 of the Act has become final and conclusive as different by a judgment in a lawsuit against it" means a case where the existence of such transaction or act, etc. or its legal effect has been determined to be different by a judgment in a lawsuit against it after the first declaration, etc. was made, and thus the first declaration, etc. cannot be maintained properly as it becomes final and conclusive as the existence of such transaction or act or its legal effect has been different (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du2379, Jul. 28, 2011).

2) Determination

As alleged by the Plaintiff, it is true that the decision of recommending settlement that the Plaintiff would receive additional 000 won from BBC loan on the premise that the transfer value of the instant land after the instant disposition is KRW 000 or 000. However, as recognized by the lower court, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Tax Tribunal on April 15, 2010 of the instant disposition, but was dismissed on December 13, 201 of the same year. From the above administrative appeal, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant sales contract was divided into KRW 000 of the purchase price for the land and KRW 000 of the purchase price for the obstacles, and even before the instant lawsuit was brought on March 11, 201, where the Plaintiff had no possibility of including the purchase price for the instant land in the instant sales contract in the first lawsuit to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s first decision on March 2, 2011, which became final and conclusive by taking account of the legal principles as to the parties to the instant sales contract’s intention, and where there was no possibility of voluntary settlement or reconciliation.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.