Suwon District Court-2017-Guhap6504 ( April 24, 2018)

Global Income Detailed and Revocation of Disposition

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).

Article 21 (Other Incomes)

2018Nu4567 Gross income and revocation of disposition

KimA

BB Director of the Tax Office

Suwon District Court Decision 2017Guhap6504 Decided October 24, 2018

November 08, 2018

November 29, 2018

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The global income tax for the year 201 that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on October 1, 2015 shall be levied on the Plaintiff.

The imposition of KRW 302,903,550 shall be revoked.

1. cite of the reasons for the written judgment in the first instance;

The reasoning of this Court concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for those written by the court as stated in Paragraph (2). Thus, this Court shall accept it in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

4. The phrase “CC returned it to the Plaintiff on May 31, 2011” as “the Plaintiff returned it toCC on May 31, 2011.”

5. The testimony of the CC by the witness of this Court, which seems to be contrary to the 8 line "........"

I believe that it is difficult to believe as seen in the following, and that there is no other reflective evidence.

6 The following shall be added to the 6th line:

Unlike the statement in the above written confirmation, “CC was present at this court as a witness and testified to the effect that “The contract concluded as of May 17, 201 was concluded as a witness as a separate contract. However, as a result of a failure in the purchase financing plan, etc., the above contract was rescinded, and thus the Plaintiff was returned the down payment amount of KRW 250 million. Accordingly, even though the above contract was rescinded due to the reasons on the witness side, the fact that the witness received the full return of the down payment was excluded from one parcel in the contract as of May 27, 2011 between the Plaintiff and DD, so it is difficult to believe it as is in view of the following circumstances.”

Even though the Commission asserted that it entered into a separate contract with DD as above, it has tried to allow DD to purchase each of the instant land, etc. in the process of the witness examination, or was finally intended to purchase DD with DD, but it was corrected that it entered into a contract under its own name, with the first priority, and made a testimony as to the developments leading up to the conclusion of the contract on May 17, 201. Furthermore, CC did not specifically testify about the timing or method of receiving the down payment from the Plaintiff, and there is no objective evidence to deem that the down payment was returned to CC.

The Republic of Korea also testified to the effect that the contract deposit returned by the Plaintiff is included in the money of other investors than DD, among the down payment 250 million won returned by the Plaintiff. However,CC failed to specifically state the amount specifically invested in DD, etc. or the circumstance leading up to the distribution of the returned down payment. Furthermore, ifCC was independent of DD, it is not easy for the Plaintiff to cancel the contract, while the contract was rescinded by the cause attributable to theCC, to fully refund the down payment.

B. The Plaintiff entered into a new contract with DD and stated that the Plaintiff was fully returned the down payment as it was excluded from the subject matter to be sold and purchased. However, the sum of the officially announced forest land price of each of the instant land, the ownership transfer registration of which was completed in DD, is KRW 629,670,100, and the officially announced forest land price of KRW 77-49 is KRW 36,43,500 (=22,700,000 + KRW 222,700 x 1605 m2,000) and thus, it cannot be registered (the forest price of KRW 77-49 is prepared for the purpose of registration).

Even in accordance with the sales contract dated May 27, 201, the sales price for each of the instant lands and ○○○-ri Busan 77-49 was KRW 543,797,220, among which the total purchase price for each of the instant lands and 77-49 was KRW 16,01,850, whichever is less than KRW 16,001,850, and DD continuously demanded the Plaintiff to transfer ownership for ○○-ri Busan 44-79, and the Plaintiff also stated to the effect that “the Plaintiff is included in real estate to be transferred to D where ○○-ri 44-79, a forest is to be transferred to DoD” (Evidence No. 10). In light of the fact that DoD filed a complaint against the Plaintiff by fraud, the aforementioned testimony by CC is not acceptable.

6 to 67 lines "no legal relationship exists," the following shall be added:

“The Plaintiff stated at the prosecution as follows: “The Plaintiff received additional KRW 350 million in addition to the Defendant’s loan obligation that DD succeeded to with the instant real estate price,” which received KRW 50 million from DD to the deposit account in the name of EE on August 1, 2011 (the 21st page of the evidence No. 3-2), and the registration expenses of DD are not deemed to have been borne by the FF (the 26th page of the evidence No. 3-2 of the evidence No. 3),” and the Plaintiff received each loan certificate of KRW 350,000,000 from DD throughCC on May 17, 2011, the Plaintiff received each loan certificate of KRW 90,000 from DD (the 4-8,90,000).”

3. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is groundless.