손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The plaintiff's assertion is based on the following grounds for the claim of this case. A.
On November 11, 2011, the Plaintiff purchased from C the purchase price of KRW 148,00,000 from Seodaemun-gu Seoul and its ground unauthorized buildings.
B. However, the Defendant, who arranged the above sales contract, prepared a false double contract as if the above sales contract was completed in KRW 370,000,000.
C. The Plaintiff sold the above real estate to E, and paid capital gains tax on the basis of the sales price under the above sub-paragraph (b).
However, the Defendant reported the establishment of the above double contract to the National Tax Service and had the Plaintiff collect KRW 70,000,000 from the Plaintiff based on the purchase price under the above paragraph (a).
E. Therefore, the Defendant shall compensate the Plaintiff for the above additional charges of capital gains tax amounting to KRW 70,000,000 and KRW 20,000,00 for mental damage suffered by the Plaintiff through the above process.
2. Determination
A. First, we examine the claim for damages related to the collection of capital gains tax, and even if the Plaintiff was subject to collection from the National Tax Service due to the reasons as alleged by the Plaintiff, this is merely a collection of the shortage of capital gains tax to be paid as a matter of course on the basis of the sales price stated in the paragraph (a), regardless of whether or not the Defendant reported, on the basis of the purchase price alleged by the Plaintiff, regardless of whether or not it was the Defendant’s report. Therefore,
Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s claim is difficult to accept without having to examine the authenticity of the Plaintiff’s assertion regarding the preparation of double contract.
B. Next, as long as the claim for damages related to consolation money is not recognized as above, it is premised on the occurrence of damage related to the additional collection of transfer income tax, so long as the claim for damages related to the additional collection of transfer income tax cannot be recognized as above.