Seoul Administrative Court 201Gudan18178 (26 December 2012)

National Tax Service Review and Transfer 2011-0016 (Law No. 29, 2011)

It is insufficient to recognize that part of the purchase price was returned.

After transferring the land to the company, the transferee company's actual investors should be excluded from the transfer value, but it is insufficient to recognize that the submitted evidence alone was returned.

2012Nu33210 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

IsaA

The director of the tax office.

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2011Gudan18178 decided September 26, 2012

March 29, 2013

April 26, 2013

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. All costs are borne by the plaintiff.

The Defendant’s disposition imposing capital gains tax of KRW 000 for the year 2005 against the Plaintiff on June 10, 2010 (including additional tax of KRW 000) shall be revoked.

Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition and related statutes;

The reason for this part is as stated in each corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the plaintiff's principal

1) Around January 2008, the Plaintiff received a document demanding the return of KRW 000,000, which the Plaintiff received as a part of the purchase price of the pertinent land from the Nonparty Company, and became subject to counsel with respect to response thereto.

2) Although the Plaintiff agreed on July 1, 2005 that the Plaintiff, an actual investor of the non-party company, and six other parties, who were the actual investors of the non-party company, comprehensively take over the purchaser's right to the entire land, concluding a contract to modify the existing sales contract between the non-party company and the non-party company, as described in paragraph 1-B, is legally problematic. Thus, the Plaintiff presented the opinion that the Plaintiff should return the amount received in excess of the purchase price under the initial contract.

3) Accordingly, the Plaintiff entrusted the most tax accountant with the comprehensive administration of the above 000 won refund issue. On July 30, 2009, the Plaintiff agreed that the Plaintiff shall return the above 000 won out of the above 00 won to the non-party company and the non-party company’s land purchase right fund, and the non-party company shall return the 000 won back to the non-party company’s land purchase right, the non-party company’s land purchase right, and the non-party company shall directly return the 00 won to the non-party, the actual investor, as the non-party company was in default.

4) After that, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the largestCC and the Plaintiff to transfer the national tax refund claim amounting to KRW 000 to KRW 000, and the largestCC on behalf of the Plaintiff to return KRW 000 to KRW 000 on behalf of the Plaintiff, and the largestCC returned KRW 00 to ebB, etc. via an employee ebP account, etc.

5) Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s obligation to return KRW 000,000, which was paid as part of the purchase price of the entire land, was returned to BB and to six other parties, and the portion of transfer income tax [including additional tax KRW 000 (including additional tax KRW 000)] equivalent to the above KRW 00, among the instant disposition, should be revoked.

B. Determination

1) First of all, as alleged by the Plaintiff, whether the Plaintiff returned 00 won to EB and 6 other than EB and the Plaintiff’s evidence Nos. 16, the non-party company is considered to have comprehensively transferred the buyer’s rights to the entire land to EB on July 1, 2005, to EB and 6, and there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff returned 00 won to EB and 6 other than EB and EB, and there is no other evidence to support that the Plaintiff returned 00 won to EB and EF, and the testimony of LG1 to EO and EO (including each number) and the witness of the first instance trial were insufficient to support that the Plaintiff returned 00 won to EB and 6, and there is no evidence to support otherwise.

2) While the Plaintiff asserts that from among the above shipB and six persons outside the above shipB, the Plaintiff is merely the nominal holders of the building permit, the ship B, the ship operation, the ship operation, the ship operation, the ship operation, the ship operation, the ship operation, and the ship operation, and the ship operation, and the Plaintiff returned the total amount of KRW 000 to the above ship operation, the ship operation, and the ship operation. However, there is no evidence that the snowD and the KimE are the nominal holders related to the building permit on the land in question, and that the ship operation, the ship operation, and the ship operation, and the ship operation, are the actual investors with the investment of the ship operation, and there is no evidence that the ship operation, the ship operation, the ship operation, and the ship operation, were the actual investors.

3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit to further examine.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance, which has different conclusions, is unfair, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.