It is transferred the status of buyer according to the sales contract.

It is reasonable to view that the instant money was paid in consideration of the transfer of the right to acquire the instant real estate and the payment was made.

Article 94 of the Income Tax Act: Scope of Transfer Income

2015Gudan421 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

IsaA

The director of the Southern Incheon District Office

September 1, 2015

October 27, 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 imposition of capital gains tax for the year 2003 against the Plaintiff on April 1, 2014 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

(a) The current status of ownership registration;

① At 00:00:00,290; ② the same 623 square meters prior to the same 290-4; ③ the same 636 square meters prior to the same 290-5; ④ the same 290-6491 square meters prior to the same 290-6491 square meters; ⑤ the ownership transfer registration for the instant real estate was completed on June 17, 2003 due to the sale in KimGG.

(b) Conclusion, etc. of sales contracts;

1) Conclusion of a sales contract dated April 10, 2003

A) On April 10, 2003, the Plaintiff and the MediationCC (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff, etc.”) purchased the instant real estate in KRW 1.9 billion from AB, and AB entered into a sales contract with the effect that, on May 10, 2003, the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 200 million as the down payment on the date of the contract, ② the remainder of KRW 1.7 billion as the remainder of May 10, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “the instant sales contract”). Article 5 of the sales contract entered into at the time the buyer paid the intermediate payment to the seller, the seller shall reimburse the remainder of the down payment and the buyer may cancel the said contract with the waiver of the down payment.”

B) Accordingly, the Plaintiff et al. paid the down payment of KRW 200 million to AB on the date of the contract.

2) Notice of succession to the buyer’s status under the instant sales contract

A) On April 29, 2003, the Plaintiff et al. received KRW 250 million from Edd and Ed and the outer F (hereinafter “Ed, etc.”). Of them, KRW 50 million was distributed equally by the Plaintiff et al. in proportion to KRW 25 million.

B) There is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the Plaintiff, etc. constitutes the down payment that the Plaintiff, etc. paid to the Plaintiff, etc., to the informationB on the same day, as the down payment that the Plaintiff, etc. paid to the informationB.

○ After the conclusion of the instant sales contract, AD succeeds to the purchaser status under the instant sales contract from the Plaintiff, etc., but both the Plaintiff, etc. and AD have succeeded to the remainder payment stipulated in the instant sales contract.

On May 10, 2003, the remainder of 1.7 billion won was not paid.

○ Does succeeded to the status of purchaser under the instant sales contract shall remain unpaid on May 19, 2003

1.7 billion won shall be paid by May 23, 2003, but if the balance is not paid by the above date, the remaining amount shall not be paid.

(2) have been signed in writing to waive all things.

○ The AB believed that the Plaintiff, etc. and ED will comply with the contents of each letter, and up to May 23, 2003.

A convenience shall be provided, and the sales contract of this case shall be terminated pursuant to Article 5 of the sales contract of this case after the above date.

The notification that this point is the wind of both underground times.

It has transferred the contractual buyer status, so that it will change the registration of transfer of ownership in the future of DoD.

the notice was sent by content-certified mail.

C) Meanwhile, on May 21, 2003, AB sent a content-certified mail to urge the Plaintiff, etc. to pay any balance under the instant sales contract as follows.

3) Conclusion of the contract on June 3, 2003

A) On June 3, 2003, KimG purchased the instant real estate from DaD2, etc., and entered into a sales contract with DoD, etc., stating that ① KRW 200 million is the down payment on the day of the contract, and ② KRW 2.4 billion is paid for the remainder payment on June 11, 2003.

B) Accordingly, KimG paid 200 million won down payment to LeeD, etc. on the day of the contract.

C) After that, KimGG paid 1.5 billion won to AB in lieu of the balance payment of AD, and ② prepare and deliver a total of KRW 700 million loan certificate to AD et al., and completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant real estate due to sale in its own future.

(c) Capital gains tax assessment and notice;

2) However, the seller's column in the sales contract (B 5) is written only as the "stf".

1) After conducting an investigation of capital gains tax on KimG, the director of the Suwon District Tax Office has conducted a transfer income tax on the plaintiff et al.D

The instant real estate was not acquired by transferring the status of purchaser under the instant sales contract to others

The decision that the transfer of registration was made and the defendant was notified of the taxation data.

2) On April 1, 2014, the Defendant imposed capital gains tax of KRW 32,664,00 on the Plaintiff on April 1, 2014, on the following grounds: (a) the Plaintiff, etc. sold the instant real estate to EDR, etc. on the basis of the notification of taxation data by the head of the Suwon Tax Office; and (b) in return, the Plaintiff, etc. obtained gains gains from transfer of KRW 25 million.

D. Claim for tax adjudication

On August 12, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the grounds that it was dissatisfied with the aforementioned disposition. On December 23, 2014, the Tax Tribunal transferred the instant real estate to DoD, etc. by the Plaintiff, etc., not the instant real estate.

D. The above 25 million won is the right to acquire the real estate of this case, and the former Income Tax Act

Article 104 (1) 2 of the Act on December 30, 2003 (amended by Act No. 7006 of December 30, 200, hereinafter the same) decided that "the tax amount should be corrected by applying the tax rate stipulated in Article 104 (1) 2

(e) Disposition of correction of transfer income tax;

On January 7, 2015, the Defendant issued a revised notice of KRW 20,793,500, which was calculated by applying the tax rate of 36% under Article 104(1)2 of the former Income Tax Act to the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition in this case") that was corrected on April 1, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 4, Eul 1 to 6 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

3) Unlike the facts acknowledged earlier, the taxation data notified at the time is deemed to have been received KRW 300 million from ED, etc.

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Of KRW 250 million, the Plaintiff et al. received KRW 200 million from ED, the Plaintiff et al. received the down payment that the Plaintiff et al. paid to EH, and the remainder of KRW 50 million (hereinafter “the instant money”) was paid as penalty for breach of contract waiver. Nevertheless, the Defendant’s deeming the instant money to have been paid to ED et al. as the price for the transfer of the purchaser status under the instant sales contract was unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence and factual basis mentioned above:

In light of the above, the money of this case can be acquired by the plaintiff et al. to Edd, etc.

Since it is reasonable to see that he transferred interest and received the payment for it, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

○ First, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant monetary amount was paid as the penalty for breach of contract pursuant to the waiver of contract, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and instead, in light of the fact that AH sent the content-certified mail to urge the Plaintiff, etc. to pay the balance under the instant sales contract on May 21, 2003, etc., it is not deemed that AB at the time did not properly perform its obligation due to the reason attributable to the Plaintiff, etc., and thus, it is difficult to deem that AB was liable to pay the penalty to the Plaintiff, etc.

○ If the instant money is a penalty as alleged by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, etc. was entitled to receive KRW 400 million, which is a part of the down payment, pursuant to Article 5 of the sales contract of this case, from HaH, if the said money is a penalty, as alleged by the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff, etc. was paid KRW 250 million, including the down payment from DaD

In light of the above, the right to acquire the instant real estate after the conclusion of the instant sales contract seems to have been transferred to AD, etc. on the condition that the Plaintiff et al. would receive KRW 250 million total sum of the instant money added to the consideration for transferring the status of purchaser from AD et al. to AB. under the instant sales contract.

3. Conclusion

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