Disposition that was imposed on the business income and capital gains from the sale of real estate is not a disposition that is void as a matter of course.

Even if a public official is engaged in tax affairs in the classification of business income and capital gains from the sale and purchase of real estate, it is difficult to readily conclude whether such a public official continues to exist, repeats, or is for profit-making. Therefore, the defect in the imposition of global income tax cannot be deemed as

2011Return of unjust enrichment, combined 6110

b Kimb

Korea

July 13, 2012

August 10, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant sought to pay to the plaintiff 00 won and to the plaintiff 20% interest per annum from the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

The following facts may be admitted by integrating each entry in Gap evidence of paragraphs 1 through 13, and Eul evidence of paragraphs 1 through 7 (including each number), and the whole purport of the pleading between the parties:

A. During the period from February 200 to September 2003, the Plaintiff filed a voluntary declaration with the head of the Youngdong Tax Office on the difference in transfer arising from the transaction that disposes of the Plaintiff’s real estate to a third party, and paid KRW 309,657,550 in total from February 200 to September 2005 as transfer income tax.

B. From December 28, 2005 to February 8, 2006, the Gwangju Regional Tax Office, as a related person of the non-party Aa development corporation, has conducted a tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiff, and on February 22, 2006, sent a notice of tax investigation results to the effect that the Plaintiff acquired real estate 13 times to December 2000 and transferred it to the Cheongju Tax Office (hereinafter the same shall apply) which is the tax office having jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s domicile from February 22, 2006, the Plaintiff’s act constitutes real estate sales, and thus, the Plaintiff should impose comprehensive income tax on the real estate transaction generated during the above period, rather than capital gains tax.

C. On March 17, 2006, the Director of the Cheongju Tax Office imposed an annual comprehensive income tax on the transaction of real estate owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the “real estate transaction in this case”) from 2000 to 2004 on the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the “real estate in this case”). On June 16, 2006, the Plaintiff was subject to the revocation of the disposition on June 26, 2006 as to the global income tax for the tax year 2004 from the above disposition in this case. The detailed details of the disposition in this case are as follows.

D. The Plaintiff applied for the deferment of collection of global income tax imposed as stated in the above sub-paragraph (c) and received the approval, and paid the global income tax as listed in the following table.

E. After November 15, 2010, the Young Dong Tax Office filed an application for correction and application for refund of capital gains tax with the purport that the Plaintiff was unable to pay capital gains tax together with global income tax on the real estate transaction in 2006 and 2007, and the Plaintiff was subject to the global income tax on December 9, 2010 to the head of the Dong-gu District Tax Office for filing a request for correction and application for refund with the purport that the Plaintiff filed a return of capital gains tax on the real estate disposition as global income for the period from 2005 to 2007, and that the Plaintiff was subject to the global income tax return by filing a return and filing a double payment. However, on February 17, 2011, the head of the Dong-gu District Tax Office notified the Plaintiff of the fact that the Plaintiff filed a return of capital gains tax on the real estate transaction in 1989 to 15 years in consideration of the fact that the land category was not changed and that the real estate was expropriated in Pyeongtaek-gun.

F. Accordingly, on March 2, 2011, the Plaintiff received an application for grievance from the head of the Dong Cheongju Tax Office to the head of the Dong Cheongju Tax Office on the ground that when the real estate transaction was expropriated by the State or a public institution from 2000 to 2004, transfer income tax, other than business income tax, should be imposed on real estate sales business, and received a notification of the answer that the period for filing a civil petition for grievance (not later than 30 days before the expiration of the national tax exclusion period) is excluded from the deliberation.

G. Meanwhile, from March 14, 2011 to March 31, 2011, the Daejeon Regional Tax Office conducted a comprehensive audit on the Dong Cheongju Tax Office, and as a result, instructed the Plaintiff to correct the following: “The above real estate is a long-term rental apartment and long-term rental object, and the period of possession is at least 20 years, and there was no development activity (such as change of form and quality, division, merger, etc.) in the case of former, answer, and forest land, and some of them were expropriated regardless of the Plaintiff’s intent, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff traded real estate for the purpose of taking profit profits, and the income from the above real estate disposition constitutes capital gains, on the ground that the income from the above real estate disposition constitutes capital gains, and the comprehensive income tax imposed on the Plaintiff for the transaction during the above period from March 14, 2011 to March 31, 2011 is subject to warning and caution.

H. On June 3, 201, the Plaintiff received a written request for grievance with the purport of claiming that the transfer income tax should be imposed on the real estate transaction in the instant case, which was executed from 2000 to 2004 by the head of the Dong District Tax Office, by asserting that in the event of long-term lease of real estate acquired for the purpose of lease, the transfer income tax should not be imposed on the real estate transaction. However, on June 10, 201, the Plaintiff was notified that the period for filing a civil petition for grievance should also be excluded from the deliberation after the lapse of the period for filing a civil petition for grievance. On the other hand, on June 10, 201, the head of the Dong District Tax Office notified the Plaintiff of the results of the audit that “The details initially reported as global income tax should be corrected and notified as transfer income tax due to error in income classification according to the results of the comprehensive audit of the Daejeon District Tax Office.”

(i) On June 30, 201, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission requesting refund of taxes paid in accordance with the instant global income tax disposition, but around that time, the Plaintiff was notified by the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission of the response that it cannot assist in filing a civil petition because it is difficult to see that the disposition of the head of the Dong-ju Tax Office is illegal or unreasonable.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff, while most of the real estate transactions of this case were transferred by the plaintiff for a long period of more than 15 years, or a public official engaged in tax affairs as the plaintiff's original expropriation or acquisition by consultation with local governments or public institutions, it is difficult to view that the above transactions were obviously conducted as a private business activity, and Daejeon regional tax office should impose transfer income tax on the plaintiff's real estate transactions of this case from 2005 to 2010 on the ground that it should impose transfer income tax on the plaintiff's real estate transactions of the same kind as the real estate transactions of this case, not global income tax, but global income tax refund and warning officials, etc.

3. Determination

(a) In order for a defective administrative disposition to be null and void automatically, it must be objectively obvious that the defect has violated important parts of the laws and regulations, and it should be objectively clear, and when determining whether the defect is significant and obvious, the purpose, meaning, and function of the laws and regulations should be reasonably examined as to the special nature of the specific case itself at the same time, and when an administrative agency takes an administrative disposition by applying a certain provision of the Acts to a certain legal relationship or fact in itself, it is clearly stated that the legal principles governing the application of the above provisions are not applicable to the legal relationship or fact-finding, and if there is no room for dispute over the interpretation of the provisions of the Acts to the extent that the defect is grave and obvious, but it is not clear that the legal principles governing the legal relationship or fact-finding are not applicable, and that it is obvious that the defect is obviously erroneous and unreasonable, and that it is not subject to investigation or transfer of the real estate at least 20, and that it is obvious that it is subject to investigation or transfer, even if it is not subject to 9.

B. We examine the instant case in light of the aforementioned legal principles.

먼저， 관할세무서인 동청주세무서와 그 상급기관인 대전지방국세청이 원고에게 2005년 이후에 이루어진 부동산 거래와 관련하여 원고가 지목변경이나 개발행위 없이 장기간 부동산을 소유하고 있었고， 일부는 원고의 의사와 관계없이 수용된 점 등에 비 추어 위 부동산 처분에 따른 소득은 양도소득에 해당한다고 통보한 사실은 앞서 본 바 와 같고，한편 갑 제1호증의 4， 을 제5호증의 2 내지 5의 각 기재에 의하면， 2000년부터 2004년까지 이루어진 이 사건 부동산 거래 중 상당부분이 원고가 장기간 부동산을 보유하고 있다가 이를 제3자에게 양도한 것이거나 지방자치단체 등의 수용 또는 협의 취득을 원인으로 하는 것인 사실이 인정된다. 그러나 한편， 갑 제4호증의 1 내지 3， 갑 제10호증， 을 제5호증의 2 내지 5，을 제 8호증의 1 내지 6의 각 기재 및 변론 전체의 취지에 의하면 원고는 1978년경부터 현 재까지 약 30년이 넘는 기간 동안 충북 영동군이나 증평군， 청주시 등지에서 DD주택， EE학원 등의 상호로 주택신축판매업과 부동산임대엽 등 부동산업에 종사하고 있는 사실， 광주지방국세청은 2006. 2.경 aa개발 주식회사에 대하여 세무조사를 한 이후 관할세무서인 동청주세무서에 위 주식회사의 주주로 되어 있는 원고와 그 가족들이 위 주식회사뿐만 아니라 건설 및 토목공사 등을 목적으로 하는 FF토건 주식회사，뉴EE개발 주식회사，GG토건 주식회사를 동일한 사업장(같은 건물)에서 운영하면서 법인세와 종합소득세 등을 일부 누락하였음을 밝히면서， 아울러 위 각 주식회사의 관계인으로서 위와 동일한 사업장에서 DD주택 등을 운영하면서 부동산업에 종사하고 있는 원고 또한 이 사건 부동산 거래로 인하여 발생한 사업소득에 대한 신고를 누락한 것으로 통보한 사실，원고는 2000년부터 2005년까지 사이에 부동산을 13회 가량 취득하고 79회 가량 양도하였는데， 그 중에는 나대지를 취득하여 이를 그대로 양도하는 경우나 임야를 취득하여 택지개발을 한 후 이를 여러 필지의 토지로 분할하여 양도하는 경우, 대지를 취득한 후 상가주택을 선축하여 양도하는 경우 등이 다수 포함되어 있는 사실 이 인정되는바， 여기에다가 앞서 든 각 증거에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들， 즉 어느 부동산의 양도에 의한 소득이 소득세법상의 사업소득에 속하는 것인가 또는 양도소득세의 과세대상이 될 뿐인가의 여부는 그 양도가 수익을 목적으로 하고 있는지 또는 사업활동으로 볼 수 있을 정도의 계속성과 반복성이 있는지 등을 기준으로 판단하게 되므로 과세관청으로서는 양도인의 부동산 보유현황을 포함하여 부동산 양도시점 전후에 드러난 사실관계를 면밀히 조사하고 난 후에야 비로소 양도에 의한 소득의 성격이 어떠한가를 밝힐 수 있는 점， 이 사건 부동산 거래 중 상당부분이 원고가 장기간 부동산을 보유하고 있다가 이를 제3자에게 양도한 것이거나 지방자치단체 등의 수용 또는 협의취득을 원인으로 하는 것이라고는 하나， 30년 남짓 부동산업에 종사하였던 원고의 사업현황과 전력 및 원고의 부동산 양도 회수와 규모 등 제반사정을 고려하면 원고가 임야를 취득하여 택지개발을 한 후 이를 여러 필지의 토지로 분할하여 양도하거나 대지를 취득한 후 상가주택을 신축하여 양도하는 것 등은 부동산매매업자에 의한 사업성을 띤 행위라고 충분히 볼 여지가 있는 점， 대전지방국세청 및 동청주세무서는 2005년부터 2010년까지 이루어진 원고의 부동산 거래와 관련하여 위 부동산은 장기임대아파트 및 장기임대상가이거나 전 ・ 답 ・ 임야의 경우 보유기간이 대부분 20년 이상으로서 형질변경， 분할， 합병 등 개발행위가 없었다는 등의 이유로 위 부동산 처분에 따른 소득이 사업소득이 아닌 양도소득에 해당한다고 보았으나， 2000년부터 2004년까지 거래가 이루어진 이 사건 부동산의 경우 그 대부분이 위와 같은 장기임대아파트 및 장기임대상가 또는 개발행위 등이 전혀 이루어지지 아니한 전 ・ 답 ・ 임야에 해당한다고 보기 어려운 점， 원고는 이 사건 종합소득세 부과 처분 후 5년 남짓한 기간 동안 위 처분에 대하여 이의를 제기한 적이 없을 뿐만 아니라 위 기간 동안에도 자선의 부동산 거래가 부동산매매업에 따른 사업소득임을 전제로 종합소득세를 지속적으로 납부하여 온 점， 원고는 2011. 3. 2.과 2011. 6. 3. 두 번에 걸쳐 동청주세무서장에게 이 사건 부동산 거래에 대하여 양도소득세가 부과되어야 함을 주장하면서 기 납부한 종합소득세를 환급하여 달라는 내용의 고충신청서를 접수하였으나， 원고가 위 고충신고서에 기재 한 종합소득세 환급대상은 이 사건 부동산 거래 중에서 '국가 또는 공공기관에 수용된 경우 및 임대목적으로 취득한 부동산을 장기임대한 후 매매한 경우'로만 한정하고 있는 점 등을 더하여 보면，세무업무에 종사한 공무원이라면 명백히 이 사건 부동산 거래가 부동산매매업 등의 사업활동으로 볼 수 있을 정도의 계속성과 반복성이 없다거나 수익을 목적으로 하지 않은 것이라고 단정하기는 어렵다 할 것이므로， 결국 이 사건 종합소득세 부과처분이 그 하자가 중대하고 외관상 명백하여 당연무효의 처분이라고 할 수는 없다. 따라서 이와 다른 전제에 선 원고의 이 사건 청구는 더 나아가 살필 필요 없이 이유 없다고 할 것이다.

4. Conclusion

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