[양도소득세부과처분취소][판례집불게재]
Kim Yong-ju (Attorney Han-tae et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Head of North Busan District Tax Office
July 30, 1986
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The imposition of KRW 1,810,880 against the plaintiff on February 15, 1985 by the defendant shall be revoked. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.
In full view of the whole purport of pleadings as evidence No. 4, No. 1, No. 1-2, No. 3, No. 2-2, No. 2-1, No. 3-2, No. 4, No. 4-2, No. 4, No. 6-2, and No. 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, the Plaintiff filed a final tax return of No. 1-5 (No. 1-2, No. 4, No. 1-7, No. 1-2, No. 9, No. 1-2, No. 1-7, No. 1-7, No. 9, No. 1-2, No. 1-7, No. 1-5, No. 4, and No. 1-7, No. 94, Dec. 17, 1982).
The plaintiff's legal representative concluded a sales contract on the land of this case with the above Busan Construction around July 1982, and the down payment and the balance are agreed to be paid on the completion date of the apartment house constructed on the land of this case, and the apartment house was completed on December 17, 1982 thereafter, but the land price was not paid on the agreed date and was paid on August 11, 1983. Thus, the time of the transfer of the land of this case is August 11, 1983. Accordingly, the transfer of the land of this case is exempted in full pursuant to Article 62 (1) of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (Act No. 3575 of Dec. 21, 1982). However, the defendant's taxation disposition of this case was unlawful by recognizing the above transfer date as December 17, 1982.
In full view of the whole purport of pleadings in the above Gap evidence No. 4, Eul evidence No. 3, and Eul evidence No. 4, the plaintiff agreed to sell the land of this case to the above vice construction on July 2, 1982 on the date of completion inspection of the apartment house to be constructed on the land of this case without paying the down payment and the intermediate payment. The above vice construction constructed on December 17, 1982 and completed completion inspection, and completed the registration of ownership transfer of the land of this case by August 11, 1983, the plaintiff paid the full payment and received it from the plaintiff, and there is no counter-proof otherwise, under Article 27 of the Income Tax Act, the time of acquisition or receipt of part of the down payment other than the date of receipt of the down payment or the date of receipt of the down payment (the date of transfer or receipt of the above 10th of the 20th of the 197th of the 2nd of the 196th of the 196th of the 10th of the receipt date of this case.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking revocation because the defendant's taxation disposition of this case was unlawful is dismissed without merit, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.
August 27, 1986
Judges Lee Young-young (Presiding Judge)
[Attachment Form Omission (Tax Invoice)]