양도소득세부과처분무효확인
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. B, around June 2005, transferred to the Plaintiff KRW 164,50,000, on June 14, 2005, the sales right of KRW 105 in Seocho-gu, Seoul E and C building (hereinafter “instant real estate” and the instant sales right of KRW 105), which was being constructed by Had Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Had Construction”) was transferred to the Plaintiff on the acquisition of the sales right of KRW 105 in the Seocho-gu, Seoul and C Location D building (hereinafter “instant real estate”).
B. B, on January 26, 2011, transferred the instant real estate to another person on March 15, 201, upon filing a transfer income tax report on March 15, 201, on the ground that, around June 2005, at the time of the transfer of the instant sales right, the Plaintiff paid KRW 164,50,000 to the Plaintiff at a premium rate of 164,50,000.
C. Accordingly, the Defendant, even though the Plaintiff transferred the instant sales right to B in KRW 164,50,000, deemed that the Plaintiff did not report capital gains tax, and on March 2, 2013, determined and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 148,99,50 (including additional tax) for the capital gains tax reverted to the year 2005.
(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case"). / [Grounds for recognition] Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1, 3, Eul evidence 3-1, 2, 5, 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the instant disposition is null and void
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion in this case is null and void due to the following reasons.
1) The Plaintiff did not acquire the instant parcelling-out right and arranged B to acquire the instant parcelling-out right. As such, the Plaintiff does not have any transfer income tax on the Plaintiff. (2) In determining the tax base and tax amount in the process of the instant disposition, the Defendant relied only on B’s statement without any other ground, disregarding the methods of investigation under the tax law, and dependent only on B’
B. 1) With respect to an administrative litigation that claims the invalidity of an administrative disposition as a matter of course and seeks the confirmation of invalidity thereof, the Plaintiff is liable to assert and prove the grounds for invalidity of the administrative disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da1000, May 1