Seoul Administrative Court-2017-Gu Partnership-63894 ( October 21, 2018)

The submission of duplicate documentary evidence and false receipts with the evidence of land acquisition fund constitutes fraud or other unlawful acts.

With respect to a report on the transfer tax by applying the sum of the actual cost for the purchase of land as the acquisition price of land, the price for the construction project shall not be recognized as the price for the acquisition of land, and it shall be reasonable to apply the exclusion period of 10 years to fraudulent or other unlawful acts.

2018Nu54714 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

AA, BB

a) the Director of the Tax Office, B.

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2017Guhap63894, 59598 (Consolidated) Decided June 21, 2018

October 5, 2018

November 23, 2018

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

1. Purport of claim

The imposition of the principal income tax on July 1, 2016, which was made by the head of a tax office to Plaintiff AA on July 1, 2016, of the principal income tax on the transfer income tax for the year 2008, and the imposition of the principal income tax for the year 2008, which was made by the head of a tax office to Plaintiff BB on August 1, 2016, and the imposition of the principal income tax for the year 2008, of the principal income tax on the transfer income tax for the year 2008, is revoked. The imposition of the local income tax for the xx and the imposition of the local income tax for the local income tax on the Plaintiff AA on July 1, 2016 by the head of a tax office of Seoul Special Metropolitan City is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The portion of the judgment of the first instance court against the plaintiffs shall be revoked. The imposition of the principal income tax for the year 2008, which the head of a tax office against the plaintiff AA on July 1, 2016, and the imposition of the imposition of the principal income tax for the year 2008, which was made by the head of a tax office to the plaintiff BB, and the imposition of the principal income tax for the year 2008, which was made by the head of a tax office to the plaintiff BB on August 1, 2016, all of the imposition of the principal income tax for the year 2008 and the imposition of the additional tax for the principal income tax for the year 2008, shall be revoked. The imposition of the local income taxx and the imposition of the local income taxx on July 1, 2016 by the head of a Si/Gun/Gu against the plaintiff AA and

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for this decision are as follows: Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act are as follows, except for dismissal or addition of the following contents among the reasons for the judgment of the first instance.

○ 4 pages 16, “The head of bb” shall add “ August 1, 2016.”

○ 7, 14 pages 14 adds “purchase” after the following.

○○ 13 pages 11 "Seoul around August 2008" means "Seoul around August 2004".

○ 13, 20, 13, the following is added: “(It is difficult to see the expenses paid for the alteration, improvement, or convenience of the use of the instant land because the costs of the incidental civil works, such as the above, do not cover the costs of the construction works related to the instant land itself).”

○ 14, 14, 19, and 19, shall be advanced as follows:

According to the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7837 of Dec. 31, 2005) which was enforced around 2004, the Plaintiffs did not have any intent to evade capital gains tax on the following grounds: (a) it is unnecessary to determine the amount of money to be paid to the CCC as alleged by the Plaintiffs; (b) if evidence of land creation and payment of construction expenses such as model house, etc. is necessary, it is not necessary to prepare a secondary sales contract in consideration of the future construction expenses not yet paid by CCC, etc.; and (c) the Plaintiffs did not have any intent to evade capital gains tax on the land at the time of the preparation of the secondary sales contract. However, in light of the fact that the transfer income tax cannot be deemed as having any possibility of including the transfer price and the transfer price of the land at the time of the second preliminary sale contract, the Plaintiffs did not have any intention to evade capital gains tax on the land at the time of the establishment of the second preliminary sale contract, not the transfer price at the time of the second preliminary sale contract.

○ 16. 21. "References, etc." are added after the judgment, etc.

After the 17th 18th 17th 18th "no reason exists", the plaintiffs added "(the plaintiffs asserted that the disposition of this case was not entirely reflected in the construction cost relating to the land of this case as necessary expenses, but the plaintiffs and the non-party companies determined the purchase price by reflecting the construction cost related to the land of this case at the time of the preparation of the first sales contract, and there is insufficient evidence to support that the amount was paid as construction cost related to the land of this case, so the plaintiffs' assertion also has no reason).

○ 18 pages 15 of the Income Tax Disposition is the "Disposition of Income Tax".

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is justified with this conclusion, the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.