양도소득세부과처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The grounds for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance (excluding the part pertaining to “3. conclusion”) except for the modification of the pertinent part of the judgment of the first instance as follows 2. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. “(including additional taxes)” shall be added to the right side of “300,711,640 won” of three corrected parts.
5 The following shall be added to the right side of 6 parallels “.......”
【All taxes on the instant donated house for about seven years and eight months are deemed to have been imposed on the Plaintiff’s spouse, who is the title holder of the instant donated house, and this would no longer be imposed upon the Plaintiff’s spouse for the said period after being imposed the relevant taxes, and the Plaintiff’s mother, who is the title holder of the instant donated house, was fully aware of the Plaintiff’s mother. If the ownership transfer registration of the instant donated house due to the Plaintiff’s spouse’s donation without the Plaintiff’s intent of effective donation, as alleged by the Plaintiff, has been completed, it is difficult to readily obtain the Plaintiff’s mother’s right to demand the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration of this case for a long period of time without seeking the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration of this case and maintaining the status of the said registration (in addition, there was no materials submitted that the Plaintiff’s spouse, etc. filed a complaint against the crime of
In addition, the plaintiff asserts that the lease contract for the gift house of this case has been continuously concluded by the plaintiff's mother for 7 years and 8 months above. Thus, it is difficult to easily understand that the relevant tenant entered into a lease contract with the mother, who is not the plaintiff's spouse, who is the title holder on the register, but the former mother, and even if the plaintiff's assertion is true, the lease contract is concluded.