Cho High Court Decision 2010Du2210 ( October 04, 2010)

Transfer income tax calculated as the date of acquisition by approval agreement, registration certificate, and acquisition by acquisition

As long as the approval seal contract is presumed to have been prepared in accordance with the sales contract between the parties, and the registration of ownership transfer has been made on the register, the procedure and cause thereof shall be presumed to be legitimate. There is no evidence to support the assertion that real estate was acquired in any amount different from that of the approval seal contract and the registration date

Article 97 of the Income Tax Act

2010Gudan28451 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

United Kingdom A

The head of Yangcheon Tax Office

March 9, 2012

March 23, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposing KRW 62,272,030 on the Plaintiff on April 5, 2010 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 15, 2007, the Plaintiff did not file a transfer income tax after transferring the same 00-00 square meters of Pyeongtaek-si O-dong 000-00 square meters and 73.29 square meters of the above ground buildings (hereinafter “instant 1 real estate”) and 129 square meters of the same 000-00 square meters (hereinafter “instant 2 real estate”) to the DD industry development company, and did not file a transfer income tax.

B. With respect to the instant real estate No. 1, at the EEE Association on June 30, 2003, the ownership transfer registration based on the sale on June 25, 2002 in the Plaintiff’s future was made on June 25, 2002, from the Foundation FFFFFFFF on February 21, 2005 to the Plaintiff on February 17, 2005, the ownership transfer registration based on the sale on February 17, 2005 to the remainder of 1/2 shares was made on November 18, 2005, respectively.

C. On April 5, 2010, the Defendant issued the instant disposition that determined and notified that the transfer value was KRW 355,50,000, the actual transaction value, and that the acquisition value was KRW 171,882,00 ( KRW 138,60,000, the purchase price of the instant real estate under the seal of approval agreement; KRW 15,867,000, the purchase price of the instant real estate, KRW 15,867,000, the purchase price of the instant real estate under the seal of approval agreement; and KRW 17,415,00,00, the remaining shares were appraised as donated property; KRW 62,727,030, the transfer income tax for the year 207.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 10 (including above numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On June 25, 2002, the Plaintiff, as a member of HHHHH 2, III HH 2, 3, JJ 2, 200. The Plaintiff concluded a sales contract with the representative of HE church 2,290,000 won to purchase the instant I, 2,000,000 won between the representative of HH H H H 2, III, 2, 200, 2,000 won, and the remainder of 190,000,000 won, 2,000 won, and 160,000,000 won, 2,000 won, 2,000 won, 2,000 won, and 2,00,000 won, 2,000 won, and 2,00,000 won, 3,000,000 won, 2,000,00 won, 3,000,00.

B. Determination

Unless there are special circumstances, the stamp contract prepared by the parties to the transaction and approved by the head of the Si/Gun, etc. shall be presumed to have been prepared in accordance with the sales contract between the parties, and it shall be proved by the claimant that the contract was prepared differently (see Supreme Court Decision 93Nu2353, Apr. 9, 1993). As long as the registration of ownership transfer on the registry of real estate has been completed, the procedure and cause shall be presumed to be legitimate, and the procedure and cause shall be presumed to be legitimate, and the party asserting unfair cause shall bear the burden of proving it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da91756, Mar. 27, 2008). In this case, the plaintiff's assertion is against the contents of the stamp contract or the contents of the registry, and there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff's assertion is legitimate and the disposition of this case by the defendant is legitimate.

① 원고가 제출하는 갑 제3호증의 l 내지 4(각 당회의록)은 피고가 그 원본의 존재를 부인하고 있는바, 원본의 존재 및 원본의 성립의 진정에 관하여 다툼이 있고 사본을 원본의 대용으로 하는 데 대하여 상대방으로부터 이의가 있는 경우에는 사본으로써 원본을 대신할 수 없으며(대법원 1996. 3. 8. 선고 95다48667 판결 참조), 반면에 사본을 원본으로서 제출하는 경우에는 그 사본이 독립한 서증이 되는 것이나 그 대신 이에 의하여 원본이 제출된 것으로 되지는 아니하고, 이때에는 증거에 의하여 사본과 같은 원본이 존재하고 또 그 원본이 진정하게 성립하였음이 인정되지 않는 한 그와 같은 내용의 사본이 존재한다는 것 이상의 증거가치는 없다고 할 것이다(대법원 1999. 11. 12. 선고 99다38224 판결 참조). 원고는 위 문서의 원본이 존재하였으나 수해로 멸실되어 원본을 제출할 수 없고 위 문서는 수해를 입기 전에 사본하여 피고에게 제출한 것라고 주장하나, 갑 제7호증의 1 내지 3, 갑 제8, 9호증의 각 기재, 증인 이QQ의 증 언, 이 법원의 HHHHHHHHHHHH IIIIII노회에 대한 사실조회결과만으로는 이를 인정 하기에 부족하고 달리 이를 인정할 만한 증거가 없으므로 결국 위 문서는 원고의 주장 사실을 뒷받침할 만한 증거로서의 가치가 없다(위 사실조회회보는 위 IIIIII노회도 갑 제3호증의 1 내지 4의 원본을 사본한 것을 보관하고 있다는 취지이나 갑 제3호증의 2 내지 4와 회보 중 그에 대응하는 부분을 비교해 보면, 각 문서 하단의 서기, 회장의 서명 날인 부분이 서로 일치하지 않는 점, 증인 이QQ의 증언에 의하면 JJJJJ교회의 당회의는 매주 열린다는 것인데 갑 제3호증의 2 내지 4는 그 작성일이 2002. 4. 28., 같은 해 5. 26., 2002. 6. 30.이면서도 당회의 차수는 3회부터 5회로 연속되어 있어 위 증인의 증언과 부합하지 않는 점, 2002. 5. 26.자인 갑 제3호증의 3에는 「매입 부지 "현" 평택 축협 1억 원 담보대출」 이라고 기재되어 있으나, 이 사건 제1 부동산에 평택축산업협동조합 명의의 근저당권이 설정된 날은 2002. 6. 27.로 원고와 EEEEEEEEEEEE교회 사이의 매매계약일인 2002. 6. 25.보다도 더 뒤인 점, 앞서 채용한 증거와 갑 제6호증 의 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 더하면, 원고가 이 사건 제1, 2 부동산을 주식회사 DD산업개발에 매도할 무렵 원고가 자신의 처라고 주장하는 박RR이 그 인근의 다세대 주택 40세대를 위 회사에 매도하였고, 위 회사는 이 사건 제1, 2 부동산과 위 다세대 주택을 활용하여 다세대 주택을 신축한 것으로 보이는바, 이 사건 제1, 2 부동산이 JJJJJ교회의 복지관 건립을 위하여 교회의 자금으로 매입한 것인지도 분명하지 않은 점을 고려하면 더욱 그러하다).

② The evidence Nos. 11 through 13 (Written Confirmation) and the evidence Nos. 16-1 through 3 (each receipt) of B are KK by the title holder. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff requested and adopted a SS two times in the oral proceedings of this case, and each withdrawal was made, it cannot be admitted as evidence, as there is no evidence to prove the authenticity.

③ The Plaintiff submitted the evidence Nos. 4 (Meo) and 14 (Evidence Nos. 4 and 14 (Evidence Nos. 14) as evidence, but the said evidence may not be used as evidence since there is no evidence to acknowledge the authenticity.

④ It is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 160,00,000 from DoM to use the Plaintiff as the purchase price of the instant 1 and 2 real estate solely with the descriptions of Gap evidence 5, 6, and Eul evidence 15.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.