Daejeon High Court 2010Nu1789 ( October 27, 2011)

Capital gains tax may be imposed on selling land within the land transaction permission zone without permission.

In cases where a seller prepares a sales contract as if he/she directly sells it to a third party and completes a registration of transfer after obtaining permission for land transaction pursuant thereto, if the registration of transfer remains without cancelling and the sales price received by the seller remains without returning to a third party, it is exceptionally deemed that the intermediate seller has income from the transfer of assets.

2011Du2929 Revocation of disposition of imposing capital gains tax

1. A. 2.B

The Director of the National Tax Service

Daejeon High Court Decision 2010Nu1789 Decided October 27, 2011

January 29, 2014

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

(4) In the event that a sale and purchase contract was concluded for 3G 2 and a sale and purchase contract was concluded for 3G 5G 2 and a sale and purchase contract was concluded for 5G 2G 4G 5G 2G 6G 6G 6G 2 and the purchase and sale contract was concluded for 3G 5G 2G 6G 2, the Plaintiffs are deemed to have income from the sale and purchase contract, and the sale and purchase contract was completed for 30G 5G 2G 6G 2, and the sale and purchase contract was completed for 3G 5G 2,000 5G 6G 2,002. The Plaintiffs were to have no income from the sale and purchase contract for 3G 6G 2,000. The Plaintiffs were to have no income from the sale and purchase contract for 3G 5G 6G 2,000 G 6G 2,000.

C. Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Plaintiffs purchased land transaction permission or registration of transfer of ownership on the land DDdong 35-8 and DDdong 35-26 and sold it to GG development again without intent to complete the registration of transfer of ownership. As such, the first sale contract was null and void by itself as a contract that excludes and destroys it from the beginning without intent to obtain land transaction permission, or at least as a result, GG development was finally null and void by completing land transaction permission and registration of transfer of ownership through the second sale contract.

D. The judgment of the court below is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the concept of transfer subject to capital gains tax, the principle of substantial taxation, or the inconsistency in the reasoning, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.