Plaintiff (Law Firm Seog, Attorneys Kim Young-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Director of the Pacific District Office

January 18, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 1,612,653,00 on the Plaintiff on December 1, 2010 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 2, 2002, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of Nonparty 3, and on May 29, 2009, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of Nonparty 6 under the name of Nonparty 6.

B. On September 2009, Nonparty 3 filed a final report on the tax base of transfer income, and filed a report on Nonparty 2’s acquisition of the instant land by Nonparty 2, who decided to purchase the instant land from the Plaintiff and paid KRW 300 million to the Plaintiff, with the said Nonparty 3 transferred the right under the above sales contract from Nonparty 2 and paid the remainder KRW 2.1 billion to the Plaintiff.

C. Accordingly, on December 1, 2010, the Defendant issued the instant disposition imposing and notifying the Plaintiff of KRW 1,612,653,000, which reverted to the year 2002, on the ground that the Plaintiff had sold the instant land unregistered.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 to 3 and 5 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The party who purchased the instant land from Nonparty 1 and sold it unregistered, not the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff’s spouse, Nonparty 7 and Nonparty 4. The purchaser of the sales contract prepared at the time of the purchase of the instant land is “Nonindicted 4 and one other,” and one person is Nonparty 7. The Plaintiff was merely involved in the sale of the instant land on behalf of Nonparty 7, and there was no fact that the instant land was sold, and thus, the instant disposition that reported otherwise is unlawful.

B. Determination

(1) The key issue of the instant case is whether the party who acquired the instant land from Nonparty 1 and sold the instant land unregistered to Nonparty 3 is the Plaintiff or not, and whether Nonparty 7 and Nonparty 4 are the Plaintiff, and for the following reasons, it is deemed that the Plaintiff traded the instant land.

First, according to the statement in Eul evidence No. 3, the plaintiff was the seller and the non-party 2 as the purchaser on June 8, 2002, and the sales contract concerning the land of this case was prepared as of July 15, 2002. The sales contract between the non-party 2 and the non-party 3 on July 15, 2002 also renounced all rights pursuant to the sales contract entered into with the plaintiff and the non-party 3, and the seller of the land of this case is the plaintiff. The plaintiff issued the receipt for the down payment of the land of this case to the non-party 2 on June 8, 2002, and the receipt for the down payment of the land of this case to the non-party 3 on August 8, 2002, and the non-party 3 made a final report on his tax base of transfer and made payment of the remaining land of this case to the plaintiff 2,300 million won, and the parties to this case's transfer of the land of this case to the plaintiff.

On the contrary, evidence consistent with the fact that the party who sold the land in this case to Nonparty 3 was Nonparty 7, there was the statement in the written confirmation (Evidence No. 5) prepared by Nonparty 8, who asserted that he was present as a broker at the time of the above sales contract, and the testimony by Nonparty 8. However, even according to the testimony by Nonparty 8, Nonparty 8 is not qualified as a licensed real estate agent, and it is impossible to confirm whether the party is a broker of the above sales contract because it is not indicated as a broker on the sales contract prepared by the Plaintiff and Nonparty 2, and it is impossible to verify whether the agent was a broker of the above sales contract because the seller was unable to participate, and the agent was indicated as the seller in the contract and issued a receipt

Second, the plaintiff argued that the party who purchased the land of this case from the non-party 1 was the non-party 7 and the non-party 4, and there were two testimonys of the non-party 5 and the above non-party 4's confirmation letter (Evidence A2 and 3) as to the land of this case at the time of purchase from the non-party 1, but there is no objective document to confirm the purchaser because the contract of the land of this case prepared between the plaintiff and the non-party 1 does not exist at present. The non-party 7 and the non-party 4 were present at the time of the contract with the non-party 1, while the plaintiff was present at the time of the contract with the non-party 1, the non-party 1 testified that the plaintiff is the buyer, and the non-party 4 testified that the non-party 1 was to make an investment in the land of this case with the trust of the non-party 7 and did not confirm the land of this case, and the non-party 1 testified that the remittance details against the non-party 1 cannot be memory.

In addition, even if Nonparty 4 is one of the co-owners of the land of this case, the remaining co-owners are not Nonparty 7, based on the facts acknowledged earlier, and even according to Nonparty 4’s testimony, he returned the invested money and omitted from the sale and purchase of the land of this case. Thus, the transfer margin of the land of this case was all reverted to the Plaintiff.

(2) Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful, which purchased the instant land from Nonparty 1 and imposed capital gains tax on Nonparty 3 by deeming the party who sold the instant land to be the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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

Judges Cho Min-soo