The outstanding settlement was made on the date when the purchaser fully paid the remainder of the sales price excluding loan liabilities, etc.

The contents of the above sales contract are interpreted to have paid 290 million won out of the purchase price, and as to the remainder, it shall be interpreted to have fulfilled all by the purchaser by transferring his/her security deposit and expressing his/her intent to acquire his/her obligation of loans.

Article 98 of the Income Tax Act: Transfer Time

2014Gudan765 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

Maximum 00

Head of Central Tax Office

May 14, 2014

May 28, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. A. Around June 3, 2011, the Plaintiff: (a) transferred KRW 1,321,680 of the transfer income tax for the year 201, to the Defendant, and (b) KRW 00,00,00,00,00,000,00 Seoul Jung-gu, Seoul (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the instant real estate”) for KRW 400,000 (hereinafter referred to as “Buyer”); and (c) paid KRW 1,321,680 for the transfer income tax for the year 201.

B. On January 1, 2013, the Defendant issued a correction and notification of KRW 34,395,870 of the transfer income tax for the year 2009, on the ground that the transfer value of the instant real estate was KRW 444,00,000,000 as indicated below, on the ground that the transfer value was KRW 444,00,000,000,000.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul 1 and 2

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff delegated the management of the instant real estate to the 00th of December 30, 2008, and the 00th of December 30, 2008 agreed to substitute the Plaintiff’s loan obligations secured by the instant real estate as the buyer’s acceptance of the Plaintiff’s loan obligations. Since then, there was a dispute over the validity of the said sales contract between the Plaintiff and the buyer, and on March 16, 2011, the judgment of the said lawsuit became final and conclusive, the buyer transferred ownership transfer to the buyer of the instant real estate. The buyer acquired the above loan obligations as of August 4, 201 and repaid the said loan obligations. According to the Income Tax Act and subordinate statutes, the time of transfer is deemed the date of settlement of the price, the date of registration is unclear, and if registration is made before the date of settlement, the date of registration is deemed the date of registration.

Therefore, the instant real estate is on August 4, 201, on which the date on which the payment was fully settled, took place on the day when the obligation for the loan was acquired. However, as it was registered on March 16, 201, which was earlier, the transfer date should be deemed as the transfer date. The Defendant’s disposition that was otherwise deemed unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) In full view of the aforementioned evidence, the following facts can be acknowledged in light of the contents of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 and the overall purport of the pleadings.

A) After acquiring the instant real estate on June 11, 2007, the Plaintiff delegated a sales contract and a lease contract to a small 00 won, which is the president of the shopping mall. On December 30, 2008, a small 00 million won, sold the instant real estate to the maximum 00 million won of the said purchaser on December 30, 2008, and the KRW 70 million out of the sales price was returned to the purchaser’s deposit and refund claim of KRW 328 and 329, which is the said other store. The Plaintiff agreed to substitute the Plaintiff’s deposit and refund claim of KRW 70 million with the purchaser’s deposit and premium claim of KRW 328 and 329, which is the said other store.

B) On April 18, 2009, the buyer paid KRW 290 million in total, including KRW 40 million on the date of the contract, KRW 50 million on January 20, 2009, KRW 20 million on March 30, 2009, KRW 170 million, KRW 100 million on April 22, 2009, and KRW 200 million on April 22, 2009. The buyer received and used the instant real estate from the Plaintiff on delivery on April 18, 2009. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff was from KRW 00, KRW 440 million on the instant real estate sales price.

- - Of 4, 70 million won was paid, and thereafter, 00 won was committed on April 30, 2009 while being investigated in relation to the operation of the commercial building.

C) The buyer filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the registration of ownership transfer concerning the instant real estate, and on January 20, 2010, the court rendered a judgment ordering the registration of ownership transfer on the ground that “the buyer paid all the remainder after deducting the amount of refund claims, such as lease deposit, and the amount of loan succession as agreed upon with the Plaintiff 00.” The Plaintiff appealed and appealed, but the final appeal was made on February 24, 201. The buyer completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant real estate on March 16, 201 based on the said final judgment.

D) On the other hand, the Plaintiff’s loan obligations with the instant real property as collateral amounting to KRW 80 million

By July 11, 2011, the loan interest rate was paid by July 11, 201, and the above debt was fully repaid on August 3, 2011. 2) Determination on the transfer period

Article 88 of the Income Tax Act provides that "transfer" means that an asset is actually transferred for price due to sale, exchange, investment in kind, etc. regardless of registration or enrollment of the asset, and Article 98 of the same Act provides that the time of acquisition and time of transfer shall be the date of liquidation of the price of the asset except as otherwise provided for by Presidential Decree, and Article 162 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that where the date of liquidation of the price is unclear as an exception, the date of receipt of registration or transfer recorded on the registry, registry, or registry, etc., or the date of receipt of registration (including the date of registration and the statement of change of the name), if the transfer is made before the price is settled.

D. In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff’s representative and the Plaintiff’s representative and the Plaintiff’s representative and the Plaintiff agreed to substitute part of the purchase and sale price of the instant real estate as the assignee’s loan obligation and the assignee’s succession to the claim, such as lease deposit, etc., on April 22, 2009. On the other hand, the Plaintiff transferred the instant real estate to the buyer on April 18, 2009.

Therefore, the contents of the above sales contract shall be paid 290 million won out of the sales price, and the remainder shall be interpreted as having been fully performed by the purchaser by transferring the security deposit and expressing his/her intent to accept the obligation of the loan. Unlike this, there is no evidence to deem that there was no agreement between the purchaser and the purchaser that he/she agreed to the terms of the sales contract as the buyer’s obligation to the effect that the buyer actually repaid the obligation of the loan or to obtain the consent by expressing his/her intent to assume the obligation of the loan with the discharge of the obligation of the lending institution (the agreement between the purchaser and about 000 and the purchaser to discharge the Plaintiff by repaying the above obligation of the loan, etc., and if the Plaintiff understood it at the time, the Plaintiff did not deliver the real estate of this case to the purchaser at the time of receiving the remaining sales price

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the contract price under the instant sales contract was fully settled on April 22, 2009, in which the purchaser paid all the remaining sales price, excluding the loan obligations for the instant real estate, etc. (On the other hand, the Plaintiff paid interest on the loan obligations for a considerable period thereafter, but it appears that the Plaintiff paid interest on the loan interest in the process of dispute over the validity of the said sales contract with the buyer and the buyer on the wind that the Plaintiff did not receive proper delivery of the purchase price from the lawsuit00, and such circumstance alone alone is insufficient to reverse the interpretation of the terms of the sales contract or the date of settlement

3. Conclusion

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