양도소득세부과처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the plaintiff's claim to revoke the collection of additional tax selectively in the trial are dismissed.
2...
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is that of the second 11th of the judgment of the court of first instance.
7.2. The term “.....”
7. 7.7. The plaintiff's selective addition to this court's selective addition is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments to the claims selected by this court. Thus, this is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
A. The sale proceeds from the auction of the land in this case alleged by the Plaintiff all belong to the obligees of the deceased, who are the decedent, and it is apparent that the plaintiff has no income (economic income) actually earned from the transfer of the land in this case. Therefore, the plaintiff is not obligated to pay the transfer income tax following the transfer of the land
Ultimately, the collection disposition of this case is illegal because it is against a person without tax liability.
B. Along with the fact that the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay capital gains tax was borne in the course of disposing of inherited property for the repayment of inherited property, it constitutes the expenses for inheritance stipulated in Article 998-2 of the Civil Act, and the purport of the qualified acceptance system for the protection of inheritors, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay capital gains tax, based on the qualified acceptance, is limited to the property acquired by inheritance.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Du13630 Decided September 13, 2012). Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit, since the instant collection disposition is not unlawful due to the Plaintiff’s qualified acceptance.
3. Conclusion, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the first instance, which dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim for revocation of disposition of capital gains tax, is justified as it is consistent with this conclusion, and thus, the Plaintiff’s appeal and this court are selective.