The plaintiff's assertion is not reliable because there is no objective financial data to support that the transferor is not a transferor of this case.

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff received the purchase price from the transferee and there was no objective financial data, etc., the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff was not a party to the instant trade is not reliable.

Daejeon District Court 2016Gudan100128 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

00

00. Head of tax office

oly 2017.15

2017.08.24

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 against the Plaintiff on November 4, 2014 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 10, 1995, Kim JK acquired the ownership of December 10, 1995 with respect to 1/2 shares out of 00 square meters in Jeonbuk-gun 00,000 square meters in 00 square meters in Jeonbuk-gun 00,000, and 1/2 shares out of 00 square meters in forest land in 000 square meters in the same Ri (hereinafter “instant land”). On March 9, 2010, Kim JK drafted a written contract between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff to sell the instant land in KRW 0 million.

B. On May 24, 2010, Kim JK completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant land on the grounds of sale on May 20, 2010, and Kim NNH completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 24, 2010. Kim NNH completed on May 24, 2010, the registration of ownership transfer for 1/2 shares out of 00 square meters for 00 square meters for 00 square meters for Jeonbuk-gun, 000 square meters for Jeonbuk-gun, 00 square meters for 00 square meters for Jeonbuk-gun, 00 square meters for 00 square meters for Jeonbuk-gun, 00 square meters for 00 square meters for 00 square meters for Jeonbuk-gun, 00 square meters for 00 square meters for each of them.

C. As a result of the investigation of capital gains tax against the Plaintiff, etc., the Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff acquired the instant land from Kim JK in KRW 0 million and transferred it to Lee JS and Jeju YM in KRW 0 million; and (b) imposed a disposition imposing capital gains tax of KRW 000 for the year 2010 on the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and brought an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on June 11, 2015.

B. On November 9, 2015, the decision of dismissal was made.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 4 through 6, Eul evidence 1, the whole pleadings

purport of this chapter

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff purchased the instant land because it was designated as a hot spring district, and the Plaintiff came to know that it was impossible to develop hot spring after paying the intermediate payment of KRW 100 million to Kim JK. Since then, Kim JK sold the instant land to Kim NNH, Kim NNH, and Kim NNH paid the down payment and intermediate payment to the Plaintiff by Kim JK, and this JS paid the down payment and intermediate payment to the Plaintiff by Kim JK to the Plaintiff, and the sales contract between Kim JK and Lee JNH and Lee JS, regardless of the Plaintiff. In other words, the Plaintiff purchased the instant land from Kim JK and transferred it to Lee JS and Jeju YM, and thus, the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax against the Plaintiff is unlawful.

2) Even if the Plaintiff is the acquisitor and transferor of the instant land, the Plaintiff purchased the instant land at KRW 0 million, and thus, the instant disposition that determined the transfer income tax amount on the premise that the Plaintiff acquired the instant land at KRW 2 million is unlawful.

(b) Fact of recognition;

1) Documents prepared between the parties

As of March 9, 2010, a real estate sales contract was prepared between Kim JK and the Plaintiff, and Kim JK sold the instant land to the Plaintiff at KRW 32,350,000,000.

As of May 18, 2010, Kim JK prepared a sales contract to sell approximately KRW 43 million out of KRW 6,300,000 of the co-owner Kim JK's portion of 1/2 shares of approximately 00,000 square meters in 00 square meters in 00,000 square meters in 00,000 square meters in 00,000,000 in 00,000,000 in 00,000,000 in 00,000. The seller column of the above contract stated that the Plaintiff prepared a sales contract on behalf of Kim JK.

○ As of May 20, 2010, between the Plaintiff and EJS, the document of borrowing KRW 0 million was drawn up on June 21, 2010 between the Plaintiff and EJS, with the due date set as of June 21, 2010.

2) Details of the movement of funds relating to the sales contract

○○ Kim JK received KRW 0 million in total from the certified judicial scrivener office representing the Plaintiff on March 10, 2010, KRW 0 million from the Plaintiff during the period from March 29, 2010 to April 1, 2010, KRW 0 million from the Plaintiff, KRW 0 million from the Jeju YM on March 29, 2010, KRW 0 million from May 20, 2010, and KRW 0 million from Kim NH.

○ On March 9, 2010, Jeju YM paid KRW 0 million to the Plaintiff, KRW 0 million to the Kim JK on March 29, 2010, and KRW 0 million in total.

The ○ JS paid KRW 200 million to Kim NH on May 20, 2010, and KRW 0 million to the Plaintiff from May 18, 2010 to July 8, 2010.

○ The money paid by Note YM and EJS are KRW 0 million in total (i.e., KRW 0 million + KRW 0 million). The specific details of the movement of funds relating to the purchase and sale contract of the land of this case are as shown in the attached Form.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 1, Evidence Nos. 2, 3, 9, and 10, Evidence Nos. 2, 3, 9, and 10, Evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

1) Whether the Plaintiff is the acquisitor or transferor of the instant land

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the above facts as well as the statements in subparagraphs 5 and 6 of the above facts and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff can be recognized as having purchased the instant land from Kim JK and sold it to Lee JS and Jeju YM.

In addition, in February 2011, the Kim NNH lent lent the name of the party to the sales contract for the land located in the 00 North Korean Military Sub-Eup located in the Jeonbuk-gun, but the name of the party to the sales contract was discovered to 00 KJ, such as the testimony of Kim NH at the time of the completion of the registration of ownership transfer, and there was no circumstance to recognize that Kim NNH participated in the sales contract with the Lee JS.

○ On May 18, 2010, the Plaintiff drafted a sales contract on behalf of Kim JK that part of the instant land will be sold to JS, and received KRW 0 million from YM, and KRW 0 million from JS.

As to the reasons why the Plaintiff received KRW 0 million from JS, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff received the down payment or intermediate payment from JK, and that the remainder of KRW 0 million was paid out of JS. However, it is an exceptional case that the purchaser, who rescinded the sales contract, borrowed money to a new purchaser, and the Plaintiff did not submit objective financial data, etc. to support the assertion that the Plaintiff lent KRW 0 million to JS. In light of the above, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is groundless.

2) Whether the determination of capital gains tax amount is lawful

B. As seen in paragraph 2 of the above, the money deposited to Kim JK is a total of KRW 0 million, and Kim JK testified that Kim JK sold the instant land and received KRW 0 million. Thus, it is recognized that the Plaintiff purchased the instant land at KRW 0 million.

Therefore, the instant disposition that the Plaintiff determined the transfer income tax amount on the premise that the Plaintiff acquired the instant land in KRW 00 million and transferred it in KRW 00AA0,000, is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.