Cho Jae-2014- Daejeon-501 (Ying 30, 2014)

The instant land transaction is not an investment but an unregistered transfer transaction.

As long as the Plaintiff received the transfer amount and the transferred land was specified, the instant lawsuit is unlawful since it ought to be deemed an unregistered transfer transaction that is not an investment.

Article 94 of the Income Tax Act: Real taxation under Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Daejeon District Court-2014-Gu Group-100872 ( October 15, 2015)

이@@

o Head of the tax office

November 20, 2015

15, 2016

1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

2. The part of the conjunctive claim in the instant lawsuit is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

Main purport of claim: A transfer office to which the head of the OOO tax office belongs in September 1, 2013 against the plaintiff on September 1, 2013

The imposition of tax (including additional tax) 157,79,590 won shall be revoked.

Preliminary claim: Transfer Income Tax (Added) accrued to the Plaintiff on October 8, 2014 by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on October 8, 2014

The imposition of KRW 157,79,590 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. As to the seller’s agent, SBS and the buyer’s name on July 30, 200, the sales contract (hereinafter “sales contract”) was formulated on July 30, 2003 with regard to the OY-5 Forest Land No. 13,421 square meters, 48-22 Forest Land No. 15,500 square meters, a total of 28,921 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) in OYS’s OY-si OO-si, OO-si, OO-si, and O-si: (a) KRW 300 million (a contract amount: KRW 100 million: when a contract is made on August 12, 2003; and (b) the remainder of KRW 100 million: the due date: January 9, 2004).

B. The Plaintiff delegated the sale of the instant land to UHC and LS after November 30, 2003

(50,000,000,000,000,000

the power of attorney to provide approximately 200 square meters to the land which is able to be constructed."

C. Of the instant land, 5,44 square meters (i.e., 17,96 square meters; hereinafter referred to as “transfer land of this case”), the seller’s agent SBS and purchaser YS and YS sales price in the name of LCS: KRW 500 million (a contract amounting to KRW 100 million: when entering into a contract at the time of payment: the time of payment: December 12, 2003 at the time of payment; the remainder of KRW 200 million at the time of payment: January 10, 2004 at the time of payment; hereinafter referred to as “sales contract on December 11, 2003”).

D. The director of the OOO considers that the Plaintiff had not resold the transferred land of this case, and thus the transfer value of the transferred land of this case is KRW 50 million and the acquisition value is KRW 186,674,040 (=300 million in the acquisition value of the land of this case ¡¿ the area of 17,96 square meters in the transferred land of this case ¡À28,921 in the area of the transferred land of this case.

On September 1, 2013, the Plaintiff imposed capital gains tax (including additional tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) for 436,287,590 won on the Plaintiff on September 1, 2013.

E. The former Office Organization of the National Tax Service and its affiliated agencies (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25237, Mar. 11, 2014) came into force on April 7, 2014, and BDJ secretary was newly established, and the authority over the instant disposition was authorized.

The director of the Daejeon Tax Office was changed to the defendant.

F. The Plaintiff filed a tax appeal. On September 30, 2014, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision that “In addition to the sales contract and the financial evidence equivalent to KRW 300 million, the Plaintiff shall be deemed to have sold the instant transferred land in the absence of objective evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff sold the instant transferred land in KRW 500 million, the Plaintiff shall be deemed to have sold the instant transferred land in the absence of an unregistered manner, but the transfer value shall be deemed to be KRW 300 million, not KRW 500 million.”

G. In accordance with the decision of the Tax Tribunal on October 8, 2014, the Defendant corrected the transfer income tax amount corresponding to the year 2004 to KRW 157,79,590 for the Plaintiff (hereinafter “OO head of the tax office”) on September 1, 2013 by reducing the amount to KRW 157,79,590 for the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, Gap evidence 3-5, Gap evidence 9-1, 2-2, Gap evidence 16-1, 2, Gap evidence 17, 20, Eul evidence 1-1, 2-2, and Eul evidence 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion

For the following reasons, the instant disposition is unlawful.

(i) not acquiring or resale;

The Plaintiff paid to LCS KRW 283 million with the investment proceeds in real estate development, not the purchase price, and the sales contract dated July 30, 2003 was drafted for the purpose of collateral security. Since then, the Plaintiff: (a) waived the investment profits of the Plaintiff and demanded a return of the money invested in LCS; (b) completed the sales contract on December 11, 2003 and received a return of KRW 100 million on December 15, 2003; and (c) returned KRW 200 million on January 5, 2004; and (b) was not divided since the land transferred in the instant case was not specified under the sales contract on December 11, 2003, it cannot be deemed that the resale became effective.

(ii)that no gains on transfer accrue;

Even if the Plaintiff sold unregistered land, the Plaintiff’s entire land of this case is KRW 300 million.

Since the transfer took place, the transfer margin did not take place.

B. Determination

According to the purport of the statements and arguments in Gap 18, 19, 21, Eul 2-2-1, 3, 4, 3-1 through 8 of Eul evidence, and Eul 7 of Eul evidence, the plaintiff paid 100 million won of the down payment on July 30, 2003 to UHC in a de facto marital relationship with SBS, and 100 million won of the intermediate payment on August 11, 2003; Yms and LCS purchased approximately 5,400 of the land of this case and decided to conduct the electric house development project.

On December 15, 2003, YY 1: 30 billion won was agreed to treat the remaining 200 million won of the 30 billion won of the instant land as down payment and intermediate payment; 200 million won was stated in the 300 billion won of the instant land; 30 billion won was purchased from the 200 million won of the instant land to the 300 billion won of the instant land; 30 billion won was purchased from the 200 million won of the instant land to the 300 billion won of the instant land, and 30 billion won was purchased from the 300 billion won of the instant land to the 300 billion won of the instant land purchase and sale contract, and 30 billion won was purchased from the 100 million won of the instant land to the 300 billion won of the instant land purchase and sale contract to the 300 billion won of the instant land to the 105 billion won of the instant land purchase and sale, respectively.

3. Whether the conjunctive claim part among the instant lawsuit is legitimate

The plaintiff seeks revocation of the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax imposed by the defendant who is not the director of the OO tax office. The defendant only corrected the reduction of capital gains tax imposed by the director of the OOO tax office, and such correction is not subject to appeal litigation (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu391 delivered on September 13, 191). Therefore, the part of the conjunctive claim among the lawsuit in this case is unlawful.

(c)

4. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's primary claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the preliminary action against the lawsuit of this case is dismissed.

Since the part of the enemy's claim is illegal, it is decided to dismiss it as per Disposition.

January 15, 2016