Whether the sales price of this case can be deemed null and void on the ground that it is impossible to recover.

There is no evidence to objectively verify the sale price of the issue, and there is no circumstance to recognize the sale price of the issue as an objective and obvious claim, so the original disposition dismissing the claim for correction that deducts the sale price of the issue from the transfer price, is justifiable.

Article 45-2 Presumption of Donation of Title Trust Property

2014Guhap2519 Revocation of Disposition rejecting capital gains tax rectification

KimA

○ Head of tax office

September 10, 2015

October 8, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of refusal to revise or reject capital gains tax against the Plaintiff on December 26, 2013 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고는 2011. 7. 6. 주식회사 ◇종(이하 '소외 회사'라 한다)에게 그 소유의 충북단양군 ○○면 ◇◇리 102-1 공장용지 1,866㎡, 같은 군 ○○면 ◇◇리 436-1 공장용지 8,709㎡, 위 각 토지 지상 공장 2동(이하 통틀어 '이 사건 각 부동산'이라 한다)을 합계 12억 3,000만 원에 양도하고(이하 '이 사건 양도'라 한다) 피고에게 양도소득세를 신고하였다.

B. Around June 5, 2012, the Plaintiff did not pay capital gains tax, and the Defendant determined capital gains tax on the Plaintiff as KRW 119,511,060,00, and imposed capital gains tax on the Plaintiff totaling KRW 152,19,511,060, and KRW 23,902,212 as well as KRW 8,784,062 as additional tax for unfaithful reporting.

C. On December 11, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a request for correction to the effect that the sales contract of each of the instant real estate was null and void, and that the non-party company’s cancellation of the sales contract due to the non-party company’s failure to pay the remaining purchase and sale payment, and thus, the disposition imposing capital gains tax was revoked. However, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s request for correction on the ground that “the transfer date of each of the instant real estate was July 6, 2011, which was the date on which the registration of ownership transfer was completed,” and that “the transfer date of each of the instant real estate was July 6, 2011, which was the date on which the registration of ownership transfer was completed.

D. On April 2, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on April 2, 2014, but was dismissed on September 18, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the rejection disposition of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

After the transfer of this case, the non-party company received the loan from △△ Enterprise Promotion Foundation to pay to the plaintiff the remaining amount of KRW 630 million. Since the above loan was not implemented, the plaintiff was not paid the remaining amount of the loan, and the above remaining amount of the loan became final impossible to recover due to the closure of the non-party company's business and the bankruptcy. Accordingly, although the plaintiff has no capital gains tax, the transfer income tax should be '0', the refusal disposition of this case refusing to request the correction to the same purport should be revoked illegally.

B. Facts of recognition

1) On April 30, 2009, the Plaintiff acquired each of the instant real estate in KRW 82,5820,000, and entered into a contract to sell KRW 1.230,000 to the non-party company on July 6, 2011 (hereinafter “instant contract”). On the same day, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer for each of the instant real estate in the future of the non-party company.

2) After having received ownership transfer from the Plaintiff as above, the non-party company received a loan of KRW 650 million from △△ Cooperative as collateral, and paid part of the loan to the Plaintiff as down payment to the Plaintiff by way of repaying the Plaintiff’s existing debt, and remitting part of the contract amount made between the Plaintiff and the non-party company. The payment date for the remainder of KRW 630 million is written on July 30, 201.

3) On June 15, 2010, the non-party company was registered as a business operator and engaged in manufacturing business, etc., and filed a report on the closure of business on November 30, 2012, and four shareholders on the register of shareholders, including thisA, KimB, 0CC leaves, and DoD.

4) As the voluntary decision to commence auction on each of the instant real estate was rendered on August 22, 2012, each of the instant real estate was sold at KRW 8.1 billion on February 3, 2014. The said company completed the registration of ownership transfer on each of the instant real estate on March 24, 2014.

5) On December 26, 201, the non-party company created a right to collateral security of KRW 52 million with the maximum debt amount of KRW 52 million with respect to the non-party company on January 12, 201. At the time of sale of each of the instant real estate, each of the instant real estate was set on July 6, 201, the maximum debt amount of KRW 845 million with respect to the AA agricultural cooperative, as well as the maximum debt amount of KRW 130 million with respect to the non-party company, as of January 12, 2012, each of the instant real estate was set on April 3, 201, respectively.

6) On April 30, 2013, the Plaintiff was appointed as a sole intra-company director of the non-party company, and thereafter, submitted a written confirmation to the effect that the non-party company’s shareholders agree to return to the Plaintiff the ownership of each of the instant real estate in November 2013, “The consent of the non-party company’s invalidation of the cause of the real estate sales contract” (hereinafter “the consent of this case”) and “the representative director of the non-party company, prepared on March 14, 2014, did not pay the remaining amount of KRW 630,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 14, Eul evidence 1 to 4 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 3 is as listed in the "relevant Acts and subordinate statutes".

D. Determination

1) The Income Tax Act adopts the so-called principle of confirmation of the right to taxable income, deeming that the right that is the cause of income is realized if, even if there is no real income, the right that is the cause of income has become final and conclusive. However, even if a claim that is the cause of income has occurred, if it is objectively evident that the claim subject to income subject to taxation becomes impossible to recover due to the debtor’s bankruptcy and that it has no possibility of realizing the income in the future, income tax may not be levied on such income as taxable income. In such a case, it must be clearly stated that the taxpayer has no income by asserting and proving such circumstance (Article 209Du11874, Jan. 14, 2010, etc.).

2) From the above facts, the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the ownership of each real estate of this case was completed with the non-party company without being paid the down payment amount, and the non-party company received money as the down payment. ② According to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the non-party company was receiving the loan from the Small and Medium Business Corporation, the Plaintiff’s transfer of ownership was completed with the non-party company’s non-party company’s non-party-2’s non-party-2’s non-party-party-2’s non-party-party-2’s non-party-party-2’s non-party-party-2’s non-party-party-2’s non-party-party-party-2’s non-party-party-party-2’s non-party-party-party-2’s non-party-party-party-2’s non-party-party-party company’s non-party-party-party company’s non-party-party 1’s non-party-party-party-2’s non-party-party-party-party-2’s non-party-party-party-2’s non-party.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

(c)