양도소득세등부과처분취소
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. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the dismissal or addition of a part of the judgment of the first instance as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Thus, this is acceptable as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
(hereinafter the meaning of the abbreviationd language used in this context is the same as the judgment of the court of first instance). 2. 2. The second part "from October 5, 2009 to November 14, 2009" in the second part of the 16th sentence shall read "from October 15, 2009 to November 4, 2009".
The 3rd page "161,242,804" shall be added later (including additional taxes; hereinafter the same shall apply).
Part 3 of Paragraph 13 provides that "A person dissatisfied with the disposition of this case" shall be dismissed as "A person dissatisfied with the disposition of April 1, 2012", and Part 15 provides that "A person who has rendered a decision of re-examination" shall be dismissed as "A person who has rendered a decision of re-examination as to the acquisition value of the building of this case (the Tax Tribunal shall have deliberated both the building of this case and the building No. 1 and the building No. 2, but the object of the initial objection and the request for adjudication was the part concerning the building No. 1)."
After the 20th page "253,328,540 won" (6,411,874 won already paid by the plaintiff) of the 3rd page "the deducted amount" is added.
After the end of Part 9 of the first place, "(in particular, the tax investigation of the plaintiff on October 201 shall be contrary to the principle of prohibition of reinvestigation)" shall be added.
The following shall be added to "(2) of the 5th 6th e.g., where an investigation is conducted in accordance with a decision on necessary disposition following a request for examination, objection, or a request for adjudication (paragraph (4))."
The 5th page 13 to 16 shall be followed as follows.
The facts that the defendant conducted an investigation of capital gains tax for the year 2008 against the plaintiff from October 15, 2009 to November 4, 2009, and the plaintiff resolved to have the value of the building of this case initially reported as the acquisition value is reasonable, as seen above. The evidence Nos. 2-2 and Nos. 6-2, and 6-2.