[양도소득세등부과처분취소][판례집불게재]
Kim Hero (Attorney Kim Sang-hoon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Head of Seogsan Tax Office
may 15, 1987
The defendant's disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 8,219,81, and defense tax of KRW 1,631,94 against the plaintiff as of June 16, 1986 shall be revoked.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.
The same shall apply to the order.
2. The Plaintiff’s tax base return on 9.2 of 1, 2, 2.2 of 1, 300 won and 9.2 of 1, 200 won and 9.2 of 1, 300 won and 9.2 of 1, 300 won and 9.2 of 1, 200 won and 94 of 2, 300 won and 500 won and 9.2 of 196 of 1974 and 406 of 70, 196 of 197, 30, 400 and 97 of 197, 400 won and 5 of 1,00 won and 5 of 1,000 won and 1,00 won of 2,00 won and 5,00 won of 1,000 won and 5,00 won of 2,000 won and 5,000 won of 1,00
The plaintiff's attorney asserts that since the plaintiff paid KRW 6,600,000 to the above site for reclamation work, KRW 1,600,000 to the construction cost for sewage hole installation, KRW 6,00 to the floor and access road packing construction cost, KRW 3,200,00 to the construction cost for the building and fence, the above necessary expenses should be deducted from the transfer value in calculating the transfer margin, the defendant asserts that the above taxation disposition of this case, which was imposed and notified as above, is legitimate.
1. The amount of money to be deducted from the transfer value of the above house: 1. The actual transaction value required for the acquisition of the concerned asset; 2. The transfer cost as determined by the Presidential Decree; 3. The term “facility cost and improvement cost” in Article 94(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act means those falling under one of the following subparagraphs; 2. The expenses for the improvement of the use of the above house and building; 3. The expenses for the improvement of the above house and building No. 1. 1. 1. 7. The expenses for the building No. 1. 1. 3. The expenses for the building No. 1. 6. 7. The expenses for the building No. 9. 1. 1. The expenses for the building No. 1. 3. 4. The expenses for the improvement of the building No. 6. 7. 5. The expenses for the building No. 9. 1. 4. The expenses for the use of the building No. 7. 5. , which are determined by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Land Planning Act:
Thus, 17,400,000 won in total of the above construction cost shall be the expenses for improvement or convenience of use of the transferred asset of this case, which shall be deducted from the transfer value as necessary expenses for equipment and improvement. Meanwhile, if the above necessary expenses are deducted from the transfer value as seen above, it shall be clear that there is no tax amount as stated in the attached Table 3, in calculating the transfer income tax amount and defense tax amount to be additionally imposed on the Plaintiff when calculating the transfer value.
Therefore, since the Defendant’s taxation disposition of this case is unlawful, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case seeking its revocation is justified, and it is decided as per Disposition by applying Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 89(2) of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.
June 19, 1987
Judge Ahn Yong-il (Presiding Judge)
[Attachment Omission (Attachment 1 Report List)]