Maximum Mine (Attorney Han-dae et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of Eastern Tax Office

July 11, 1990

(1) The Defendant’s imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 4,196,040 for the Plaintiff on September 16, 1988 and KRW 419,60 for the defense tax of KRW 1,63,400 for the capital gains tax of KRW 1,633,400 for the defense tax of KRW 163,339 for the defense tax of KRW 19,60 for the Plaintiff.

(2) All remaining claims of the Plaintiff are dismissed.

(3) The costs of lawsuit shall be divided into five parts and one of them shall be borne by the defendant, and the remainder by the plaintiff.

Of the imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 12,709,180 for the Plaintiff on September 16, 1988 and KRW 2,541,730 for the defense tax of KRW 12,409,180 for the transfer income tax of KRW 2,481,837 for the first time, the imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 4,196,040 for the first time and KRW 419,60 for the defense tax of KRW 19,00 for the first time against the Plaintiff on September 16, 1988 shall be revoked, respectively. The litigation costs shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. 그의 진정성립에 각 다툼이 없는 갑제5호증의 1 내지 11, 을제1, 2, 3호증의 각 1, 2, 을제4호증의 1, 2, 3, 을제5호증, 을제8, 9호증의 각 1, 2, 3의 각 기재(다만 을제1호증의 2, 을제5호증의 기재중 뒤에서 믿지 않는 부분은 각 제외)와 원고 본인신문결과(다만 뒤에서 믿지 않는 부분은 제외)에 변론의 전취지를 덧붙여 보면, 원고는, (ㄱ) 1985. 4. 9. 조규철로부터 부산 북구 금곡동 590의 1 답 69평방미터, 590의 7 답 707평방미터, 591답 26평방미터, 592 답 288평방미터, 593 답 17평방미터, 594의 1 답 278평방미터, 594의 2 전 7평방미터, 594의 3 대 50평방미터, 594의 6 답 3평방미터 동 9필지를 대금 69,700,000원에 매수하는 계약을 체결하고 같은해 7. 22. 같은 날짜 매매를 원인으로 하여 원고 앞으로 소유권이전등기를 경료 하였다가 같은해 9. 28. 위 9필지의 토지를 정영호에게 대금 91,000,000원에 매도하는 계약을 체결한 후 같은해 12. 31. 같은달 30일 매매를 원인으로 하여 위 정영호 앞으로 소유권이전등기를 경료하여 주고, (ㄴ) 1987. 1. 9. 유시종으로부터 경남 김해군 진영읍 하계리 산 37 임야 57,619평방미터에 대한 2분의 1 지분을 대금 27,000,000원에 매수. 취득하여 같은해 4. 4. 전영조외 1인에게 대금 30,000,000원에 양도하고, (ㄷ) 1986. 2. 7. 이영호로부터 경남 울주군 삼남면 방기리 912전 516평방미터를, 김인도로부터 같은리 907전 1058평방미터를 대금 합계 5,200,000원에 매수. 취득하여 1987. 3. 31. 이채옥에게 대금 9,500,000원에 양도한 사실, 원고가 위와같은 토지들을 양도하고도 양도차익예정신고나 양도소득과세표준 확정신고를 하지 아니하자 피고는 위 (ㄱ)항의 거래에 관하여는 소득세법 제23조 제4항 단서, 동법시행령(1989. 8. 1. 대통령령 제12767호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다) 제170조 제4항 제2호 , 재산제세조사사무처리규정(1985. 5. 1. 국세청훈령 제946호, 이하 재산제세규정이라 약칭한다) 제72조 제3항 제4, 5호의 규정에 의하여, 위 (ㄴ)항 기재의 거래에 관하여는 위와같은 소득세법 및 동법시행령의 각 규정, 재산제세규정(1987. 1. 26.국세청훈령 제980호) 제72조 제3항 제5호의 규정에 의하여, 위 (ㄷ)항 기재의 거래에 관하여는 위와같은 소득세법 및 동법시행령의 각 규정, 재산제세규정(국세청훈령 제980호) 제72조 제3항 제8호의 규정에 의하여, 모두 실지거래가액에 의한 양도가액에서 실지거래가액에 의한 취득가액 및 위 각 토지의 취득당시의 지방세법상의 과세시가표준액의 100분의 7에 해당하는 금액을 기타 필요경비로 공제하는 등 별표 1 기재와 같은 내역으로 산정한 세액에서 국고금단수계산법에 의하여 10원 미만의 금액을 버리고 1985년 귀속 양도소득세 12,709,180원, 방위세 2,541,730원, 1987년 귀속 양도소득세 4,196,040원, 방위세 419,600원을 원고에게 1988. 5. 16. 부과, 고지한 사실을 각 인정할 수 있고 위 인정의 취득 및 양도일자에 반하는 을제1호증의 2, 을제5호증의 각 일부기재와 원고 본인신문의 일부 결과는 믿지 아니하며 달리 반증이 없다.

2. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts that the transfer income deduction of KRW 1,50,000 was not made in calculating each transfer income amount for the transactions listed in paragraphs (1) and (2) above, and that each taxation disposition in this case is unlawful, since the period of holding all of the transactions listed in the above (c) is not less than one year since the period of holding is not less than one year, pursuant to Article 72(3)5 of the Property Tax Regulation (National Tax Service Directive No. 980), since the transfer value and acquisition value are based on the actual transaction value, not based on the standard market price.

Therefore, according to the proviso of Article 23 (2) of the Income Tax Act, the transfer income amount shall be the amount which is less than 2 years, and the fact that the holding period of the instant land transferred by the Plaintiff is less than 2 years is the same as recognized above. Therefore, the allegation that the Plaintiff’s failure to deduct the transfer income in calculating the transfer income amount is without merit, and that the acquisition value and transfer value based on the actual transaction price is not applied by Article 72 (3) 5 of the Property Tax Regulation (National Tax Service Directive No. 980) but by applying Article 72 (3) 8 of the Income Tax Act. Thus, the Plaintiff’s second assertion is groundless.

However, with regard to the above assertion that transfer margin should be calculated based on the standard market price which is not the actual transaction price, it is calculated based on the actual transaction price by applying Article 170(4)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, and Article 72(3)8 of the Property Tax Act amended on January 26, 1987, even though the period from the date of acquisition of the assets to the date of transfer is not less than one year with regard to the transaction mentioned in the above (c). On the other hand, the provisions of Article 72(3)8 of the above Property Tax Act are as follows.

In addition, according to the above legal principle, Article 72 (3) 5 of the Property Tax Regulation (National Tax Service Directive No. 946) which applies to the transaction described in subparagraph (a) above is also null and void. However, with respect to a taxation to which the above provision is applied under subparagraph 5, Article 72 (3) 4 of the same Act has the same provision applied. The above provision under subparagraph 4 does not apply to the arbitrary judgment of the tax authority, but the objective criteria for speculation are applied to judge's judgment, so there is no violation of superior law. Thus, in addition to the above provision under subparagraph 5 of subparagraph 5 of the same Article and the purport of argument before the plaintiff's personal examination result, in addition to the above purport, the plaintiff is a person who was a customs officer and operated a factory, and there is no fact that the plaintiff acquired a parcel of land at least 9 months at the disposal of another piece of land without the intention of the farmer's will, and it can be objectively acknowledged that the above transaction is legitimate and calculated based on the actual transaction price.

3. According to each of the statements in Gap evidence 5-1 to 11, Eul evidence 6, Eul evidence 7-1, 2, Eul evidence 9-1, 2, 9-1, 2, and 3 of Eul evidence 5-2, Eul evidence 9-1, 3 of 1987, among the lands transferred in 1987, the land grade at the time of transfer is 86 of 912, 516 square meters prior to the above 912, and 907 square meters at the same interest rate, and the land grade at the time of transfer is 306,060,000 won, and the regular adjustment date of land grade in 1987 on August 1 of the same year, and there is no counter-proof. Thus, if the transfer income tax and defense tax to be paid by the plaintiff is calculated by the legitimate transfer and acquisition date as shown in the attached Table 2, the transfer income tax is 1,63, 400, 3163 and 39 won.

4. Therefore, the defendant's claim as to the above part is justified because there is no error in law regarding the taxation for attribution of the year 1985. Thus, the plaintiff's claim as to the above part is dismissed without merit, and since the taxation for attribution of the year 1987 is illegal only to the part exceeding the legitimate tax amount of the above recognition, the plaintiff's claim as to the above part is justified only to the extent that it seeks the cancellation of the above part. The plaintiff's claim as to the remaining part of the taxation is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying mutatis mutandis Article 92 of the Civil Procedure Act

July 18, 1990

Judges Cho Jin-General (Presiding Judge)

[Attachment Omission (Calculation Details of Amount of Tax by Defendant)]

[Attachment Omission (Details of Calculation of Justifiable Tax Amount for 1987)]