Whether the revocation of the disposition imposing global income tax is legitimate

The disposition of this case is legitimate, which is calculated on the premise that the amount of income from the arrangement of land is KRW 1.2 billion (90 million + KRW 250 million + KRW 50 million + KRW 900 million) and necessary expenses is KRW 600 million (in proportion to the officially assessed value of each land of this case in accordance with the ratio of officially assessed value of each land of this case).

The contents of the judgment are the same as attachment.

2017Guhap6504 global income and revocation of such disposition

KimA

BB Director of the Tax Office

on October 27, 2018

on April 24, 2018

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 302,903,550 imposed on the Plaintiff on October 1, 2015 by the former Cheong-gu Defendant on October 1, 2015 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 9, 2010, the Plaintiff decided to purchase each land, etc. listed in the separate sheet No. 1 from the CCC, etc., and to purchase each land, etc. listed in the separate sheet No. 1 from the GCC, etc. (hereinafter referred to as the “instant clan”) with KRW 7 billion. The Plaintiff prepared a sales contract with the purchaser as “DD (the Plaintiff’s spouse) and nine other than DD (the Plaintiff’s spouse)” and paid the down payment amount of KRW 300 million among them. The instant clan cancelled the contract on the ground of nonperformance as it did not pay the remainder on December 9, 2010, and the down payment was not returned (hereinafter referred to as “the first sales contract”). CCC, etc. contacted with the first sale contract for purchasing each land listed in the separate sheet No. 1, which is subject to the first sale contract, the Plaintiff agreed to sell each of the above land to KRW 2500,000,000,000,000.

On May 30, 201, an agreement was reached with CCC, and on May 30, 201, KRW 1.534 billion with respect to each of the above lands, and KRW 900 million with respect to each of the above lands was paid to CCC after completing the registration of creation of a mortgage with DD with the debtor, and 00 million with loans from ○○ Agricultural Cooperative

D. The Plaintiff intended to resell each of the above lands, and as a result, on May 17, 2011 between DD and EE representing the instant clan, the instant clan: (a) indicated in the separate sheet 3 and ○○○○○○○○○-gu, ○○○○○○○○, KRW 77-49,05 square meters; (b) KRW 550,000,000 (which shall not coincide with the sum of the down payment and the remainder, but shall be adjusted as indicated in the contract); (c) E, on May 17, 2011, KRW 250,000,000,00 for KRW 30,000,000,000 for each of the above lands and KRW 50,000,000,000,000 for KRW 2,50,000,000,000 for KRW 9,50,000,000 for each of the above lands.

F. The Plaintiff filed a return on the amount of global income of KRW 1,050,00, global income of KRW 714,000 with respect to global income tax for 201. The Defendant: (a) received a total of KRW 1.25 billion (25 billion paid by EE on May 17, 201 + KRW 90 million + KRW 50 million paid by FFF on July 21, 201 + KRW 50 million paid on July 22, 201; (b) received the instant tax disposition of KRW 30,000,000; (c) KRW 60,000,000,000; (d) KRW 50,000,000 from the officially assessed value of each land listed in the attached Table 2 list 90,000,000, KRW 6016,50,0000,000,000,000 won; and (d) received the instant tax disposition of KRW 6050,506,01.4.60.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 4, 6, 7, 9 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence No. 1 (including paper numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

A. The plaintiff's assertion

With respect to the money received by the Plaintiff as a result of arranging each of the instant land, KRW 250 million received by the Plaintiff from EE on May 17, 2011 may not be included in gains in view of the fact that EE, other than the FF that acquired each of the instant land, was paid under a separate contract, and that EE returned it to the Plaintiff on May 31, 2011, and that DD was returned to the Plaintiff. 50 million won received from FF on July 222, 2011, which was refunded by the Plaintiff on behalf of FF, cannot be included in gains. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s income from the instant arrangement is the amount of KRW 90 million that FF acquired.

With respect to necessary expenses for the Plaintiff’s arranging the instant land, not only KRW 900 million paid to CCC on May 30, 201, but also KRW 300 million and operating expenses of KRW 100 million, civil engineering costs and removal expenses borne by the Plaintiff, among the down payment paid under the first sales contract, shall be included. The sum of KRW 1.40 million and the amount divided in proportion to the officially assessed value of each land listed in the attached Table 3 to the officially assessed value of each land listed in the attached Table 2, is KRW 9,60,000. Therefore, the necessary expenses cannot be deemed to have accrued the Plaintiff’s income in excess of the amount of income, and thus, the instant disposition in question is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

5 Monopoly

C. Determination

1) Determination on income amount

The whole pleadings in each entry of evidence, evidence No. 10, evidence No. 3-3, and evidence No. 4

In light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s land of this case is considered as a whole.

It is reasonable to view that the amount of income received as a result of the good offices is the total of 1.2 billion won.

(1) A resignation in which the E and FF prepares a separate sales and sales contract concerning each of the instant land, etc.

As seen earlier, EE executes the above contract on behalf of FF.

The document stating the purport that the down payment is paid (No. 4 No. 13-23) has been submitted;

FF The FF Agreement on May 17, 201 to the Plaintiff (or DD) is executed by EE on behalf of the Plaintiff (or DDD).

- the delivery of a certificate of content to that effect several times (No. 4, No. 24-32, No. 37-39);

In addition, in a case where FF filed a complaint against the plaintiff by fraud, etc., the FF's identity on May 17, 201

purchase by determining the price of each land listed in the separate sheet 2 list through EE as KRW 1.5 billion;

The contract deposit was paid KRW 250 million at the time of the contract, and the intermediate payment was paid KRW 90 million on July 21, 201.

Won paid in lieu of the acceptance of the obligation of DDR, and KRW 50 million on July 22, 201

the statement to the effect that “A” was stated (No. 10) and criminal charges against the Plaintiff

In the ancient case (U.S. District Court 2012 ***), the Plaintiff’s counsel submitted a written opinion (Evidence No. 3-3) around May 2012, 201, it stated that “the Plaintiff and FF entered into a sales contract for each of the lands listed in the separate sheet No. 2, around May 17, 2011,” and there is no evidence to deem that the sales contract between E and the Plaintiff lost its effect due to the cause attributable to EE, and there is no objective evidence to deem that the down payment was returned to E., the above KRW 250 million constitutes the amount of money for each of the lands of this case between the instant clan and FF.

② On July 22, 2011, FF paid KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff’s wife DD.

As seen above, objective proof that the Plaintiff paid registration fees, etc. for FF.

There is no legal relationship between FF and FF to pay the said money for the plaintiff or DD.

In addition, the defense counsel's opinion against the plaintiff in this case (No. 3-3)

'Concluding a sales contract for each land listed in the separate sheet No. 2, around May 17, 201 by the Plaintiff and FF.

F. F. F. F.F. succeeds to a loan of KRW 900,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000

.The payment was made on May 17, 201 by EE for the above KRW 350 million.

Han down payment of KRW 250 million, and KRW 50 million paid by FF on July 22, 2011 by the FF

In light of the above facts, the above KRW 50 million between the clan of this case and the FF

The amount of income from each land of this case constitutes the amount of income from arrangement.

③ Therefore, the amount of income is KRW 1.2 billion (90 million + KRW 300 billion + KRW 50 million + KRW 50 million).

2) Determination of necessary expenses

In a lawsuit seeking revocation of a taxation disposition, the tax authority bears the burden of proof of the tax base.

income and necessary expenses as the tax base is deducted from income.

The burden of proof also belongs to the tax authority in principle, but the necessary expenses are paid to the taxpayer.

In addition, most of the facts giving rise to necessary expenses are controlled by the taxpayer.

Since it is located in the territory of which it is difficult for the tax authorities to prove it;

If it is difficult to prove it or the equity between the parties, etc., the taxpayer must prove it.

reasonable, it is fair to recognize the necessity of proof to the taxpayer.

In line with the concept (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Du1588, Sept. 23, 2004; 2006Du16137, Oct. 26, 2007).

The evidence mentioned above and the testimony of the CCC are incorporated into the whole purport of the pleadings.

Considering the following circumstances, 900 million won paid by the Plaintiff to CCC on May 30, 2011:

In addition to the cost, KRW 300,000,00,000 borne by the Plaintiff out of the down payment claimed by the Plaintiff

The cost of KRW 100 million, civil construction cost, and removal cost cannot be considered to be included in necessary expenses.

(1) The first sale contract is cancelled due to default and the down payment has been forfeited, and the second sale and purchase.

Since then, the contract is a separate contract concluded on a new condition, and the plaintiff is subject to the second contract.

the primary sales contract is rescinded, and the CCC has cancelled its primary sales contract.

500 million won received from the plaintiff in connection with the down payment, etc. of the first sales contract.

to the Plaintiff. The right to each land listed in the separate sheet 2 shall be returned to the Plaintiff, and KRW 1.4 billion

certificate to the effect that, while moving to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff received KRW 900 million after deducting the above KRW 500 million.

Although this part of the CCC’s testimony is difficult to believe, the primary sales contract is attributable to CCC.

The CCC has been released from office and thereby, the CCC has a liability to compensate the Plaintiff for damages equivalent to KRW 500 million.

and accordingly, the CCC and each land listed in the separate sheet No. 2 with the Plaintiff on May 201, 201

It is difficult to deem that each fact was proven that the price was reduced by 500 million won at the time of concluding the contract.

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff bears 300 million won, such as the down payment paid in connection with the primary sales contract.

It is difficult to view the instant arrangement as necessary expenses.

(2) In addition, whether business promotion expenses are KRW 100 million, civil and removal expenses are invested in KRW 100 million, and the instant case

There is no objective evidence, such as details of financial transactions, which prove relevance to each land.

(3) As shown in the attached Table 4, the aggregate of the officially announced values of each land of this case shall be KRW 629,670,100.

In addition, since the total sum of the officially announced values of each land listed in the attached list 2 is KRW 94,502,200, the amount of KRW 900 million invested to arrange each land listed in the attached list 2 shall be KRW 600,001,874 ( KRW 90,000 x KRW 629,670,100 / 94,502,200) if it is divided according to the ratio of the officially announced values of each land of this case as indicated in the attached list 2.

3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, 1.2 billion won, and 60 billion won, and necessary expenses, due to the arrangement of each land of this case

The instant disposition imposing KRW 302,903,550 on global income tax calculated on the premise that the disposition is lawful.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.