Seoul Administrative Court-2016-Gu Group-61757 ( November 14, 2017)

Cho High-2016-Seoul Government-0955 (Law No. 18, 2016)

Application of 10 years of exclusion period by contract for multi-modal transportation

Although there is no doubt that the sales contract of this case is a false sales contract, the transfer value is considered as a "Fraud or other unlawful act" and the disposition imposed after the lapse of five years from the exclusion period of imposition is serious and clear since the defect is serious and obvious.

The exclusion period for national tax assessment under Article 26-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2017Nu86288 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

○ ○

○ Head of tax office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2016Gudan61757 Decided November 14, 2017

on April 2018 04

on 15, 2018

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

the Gu Office's place of service and place of service

1. Purport of claim

In the first place, it is confirmed that the imposition of a capital gains tax and an additional tax on December 4, 2015 by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on December 4, 2015 is null and void. In the second place, the imposition of a capital gains tax and an additional tax on the Plaintiff on December 4, 2015 is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

(5) The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is that "No. 1, 3, 4, and 6" of the second 16th 2th 16th 2th 16th 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 1st 2nd 2nd 1st 2nd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 3rd 2nd 1st 2nd 2nd 3rd 3rd 1st 2nd 2nd 3rd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd 1st 1st 2nd 4th 2nd 5th 3rd 1st 2nd 4th 3rd 1st 1st 2nd 5th 4th 4th 2nd 1st 1st 1st 6th 1st 1st 6th 1st 1st 6th 1st 1st 6th 1st 3rd 14th 1st 1st 1st 6th 1st 3th 2nd 3th 3rd 4th 3rd 2

2. The changed part

⑤ The Plaintiff asserts that the sales price of the instant real estate was KRW 2.32 billion, and the intermediate payment was KRW 150 million, and the Defendant asserted that the intermediate payment was KRW 2.50 million, not KRW 150 million, but KRW 350 million, and the Plaintiff underreporting the transfer price of KRW 200 million. As such, the largest issue in the instant case is whether the intermediate payment was additionally paid to the Plaintiff in addition to KRW 150 million, the Defendant’s assertion was paid to the Plaintiff.

However, + The Plaintiff’s name + (i) deposited KRW 235 million, which is part of the down payment of the down payment, on July 21, 2009, which is the date following the payment of the down payment to be established by the Plaintiff; (ii) deposited KRW 128 million, which is a part of the remainder payment, on August 17, 2009, the date of the remainder payment; and (iii) deposited KRW 150 million in the Plaintiff’s assertion as the intermediate payment on July 30, 2009, the date of the intermediate payment; (iv) however, the Defendant’s assertion was not deposited, but there was no specification that the KRW 200,000,000 of the Defendant’s assertion was deposited in the part payment to the Plaintiff by other accounts or methods, other than the said account. In addition, there is no evidence to support that the Defendant’s assertion was deposited or paid in the part payment to the Plaintiff.

Considering the above circumstances and the following circumstances, it is difficult to deem that KRW 200,000,000,000,000,000 of the defendant's assertion, as an intermediate payment, was additionally paid to the plaintiff, and it cannot be said that the defendant excessively demanded the degree of proof only to the defendant, as alleged by the defendant.

3. Additional matters to be determined;

In the instant disposition, the Defendant asserts that the instant disposition cannot be deemed null and void as a matter of course, since there was an objective circumstance to mislead the legal relations or factual relations, and the defect is not clear. However, the instant disposition is null and void as it is deemed that the exclusion period of the imposition of national taxes was imposed after the lapse of the exclusion period (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Du16975, Jul. 9, 2015). The Defendant’s above assertion is groundless.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.