수용보상금 공탁 후 소송이 진행중인 사유만으로 가산세 감면의 정당한 사유가 있다고 볼 수 없음[국승]
Suwon District Court 201Guhap469 ( October 16, 2011)
Early High Court Decision 2009Du2636 ( November 03, 2010)
The reason why the lawsuit is pending after the deposit of the expropriation compensation cannot be deemed to have a legitimate reason for additional tax reduction or exemption.
A lawsuit filed after the deposit of compensation for expropriation is merely a lawsuit to comply with the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer, and the reason for the deposit of compensation is not "if it was not possible to know the person to receive the compensation" and the plaintiff was deposited as the person to receive the compensation. Thus, it cannot be viewed that the circumstance of a dispute over real estate becomes a justifiable reason for not reporting and paying the transfer income tax.
Article 48 of the Framework Act on National Taxes
2011Nu34025 Revocation of disposition of imposing capital gains tax, etc.
IsaA
Head of Namyang District Tax Office
District Court Decision 2011Guhap469 Decided August 16, 2011
March 23, 2012
May 4, 2012
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The part of the Defendant’s imposition disposition of capital gains tax of 000 won for the Plaintiff on February 10, 2009 exceeds 00 won for the Plaintiff on February 10, 2007 shall be revoked.
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
The reasoning of this court's judgment is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance except for the following parts among the judgment of the first instance. Thus, it is accepted by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
In the end of the fourth phase of theO, the following shall be followed up to the period from 5th to 8th.
The lawsuit filed against the plaintiff (UB and thisCC) is nothing more than a lawsuit to require the plaintiff to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration of the real estate of this case, and the court of the first instance of the lawsuit was sentenced to the judgment against the plaintiff on November 4, 2005 against the highB and thisCC (the judgment in full winning the plaintiff), and the appellate court of the lawsuit (Seoul High Court 2005Na10631, 110648) pending on March 16, 2006, for the reason that the plaintiff had been working as an employee of the Seoul High Court 2003Da11977, 2004Ga711, 7111, hereinafter referred to as the "CCC") and the first instance court of the lawsuit is likely to have been aware that the plaintiff was unable to perform his duty to report the real estate of this case and thus, the plaintiff could have been finally aware that the plaintiff was entitled to have won the capital gains tax before the date of the report of this case.
2. Conclusion
Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.