No capital gains tax shall be imposed unless capital gains have accrued due to the invalidity of a contract of real estate sales.

If a sales contract is concluded by an unauthorized agent and becomes null and void, and the transferor does not have any income from the transfer of real estate, no transfer income tax shall be imposed.

Article 94 of the Income Tax Act: Scope of Transfer Income

2013Guhap21190 Revocation of disposition of revocation of capital gains tax decision

GuAA

EE Director of the Tax Office

July 10, 2014

August 28, 2014

1. On October 5, 2012, the Defendant’s imposition of capital gains tax for the Plaintiff for the year 2012 shall be revoked, respectively.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 17, 2012, the Plaintiff was the owner of each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet 1, 2, and 2 (hereinafter referred to as the “real estate Nos. 1, 2, according to the sequence in the separate sheet”). On February 17, 2012, the ownership transfer registration under the name of KimB was completed on February 3, 2012 for the instant real estate No. 2, and on February 29, 2012, the ownership transfer registration was completed in the name of ParkCC on January 27, 2012.

B. The Defendant calculated capital gains tax on October 5, 2012, on the ground that “the Plaintiff did not report capital gains tax even after transferring the instant 1 and 2 real estate,” based on the actual transaction value at the time of transfer of each of the transfer amounts listed in the register of each of the instant 1 and 2 real estate, based on the total acquisition amount recorded in the same register of register, based on the actual transaction value at the time of acquisition of the said register. On October 5, 2012, the Plaintiff made a decision to increase the tax base for capital gains tax belonging to the year 2012 as the KRW OO(including the KRW OO) and notified the Plaintiff of the total determined tax amount as the additional tax (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff filed a request for review with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on April 4, 2013, against which the instant disposition was lodged, but the Commissioner of the National Tax Service rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s request on June 24, 2013.

Facts without any dispute arising in recognition, Gap Nos. 1, 2, 3, 9 (for each type of dispute, including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The transfer of real estate Nos. 1 and 2 of this case was made by a DD that misrepresented the plaintiff's agent, and there was no fact that the plaintiff sold the above real estate or received the sales price.

Therefore, the disposition of this case based on the premise that the Plaintiff transferred the first and second real estate of this case is unlawful.

B. Determination

1) Comprehensively considering the purport of each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 8 and 10 through 12, the following facts: (i) around February 204, the plaintiff became aware of this Do, which is a real estate broker, in the course of purchasing OOO-gun land; (ii) around October 201 through December 12, 201, the plaintiff received an exchange proposal on the above OO-owned land from Do; (iii) the plaintiff cannot obtain Do Governor a copy of the certificate of personal seal impression No. 20 on February 3, 2012; (iii) the certificate of personal seal impression No. 20 on the registration of the plaintiff's real estate under the name of 20; and (iv) the certificate of personal seal impression No. 20 on the registration of the plaintiff's real estate under the name of 20 on February 16, 2012; and (v) such Do Governor was authorized to sell the above Do Governor's real estate under the name of 20.

2) The following circumstances, i.e., (i) it is difficult to deem that there is a justifiable reason to believe that the Plaintiff had the right to represent the first and second real estate in the instant case to sell the real estate to KimB, ParkCC, and LeeD, and (ii) filed a lawsuit against Changwon District Court 2012Gahap1290 against KimB and ParkCC seeking cancellation of each ownership transfer registration of the instant case regarding the first and second real estate. On February 20, 2014, the said court rendered a judgment ordering cancellation of each of the above ownership transfer registration by accepting the Plaintiff’s request on February 20, 2014, the sales contract of the instant first and second real estate was concluded by Lee Jong-B, Park Jae-B, and LeeD, which is an unauthorized representative, and there is no evidence to support that the Plaintiff has the income from the transfer of the instant real estate.

3) Therefore, the instant disposition based on a different premise is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.