beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.02.18 2015구합753

기타소득세 부과처분취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. B purchased the pertinent land of Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant land”) at the voluntary auction procedure on April 7, 1999. On July 16, 199, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract with the content that the building newly constructed on the instant land from the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant building”) shall be KRW 450,000,000, and the payment date shall be KRW 100,000,000.

(hereinafter “instant sales contract”). B.

1) B filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on the ground that the instant sales contract is unfair and null and void (Seoul District Court Branch Decision 99Gahap10913). The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the payment of the purchase price and penalty as a counterclaim (Seoul District Court Decision 99Gahap16049), and the appellate court [Seoul High Court Decision 200Na114, 200Na121 (Counterclaim)] of the said lawsuit (Seoul High Court Decision 200Na114, 200Na121)] was dismissed on November 22, 200, and the lower court dismissed the claim and rendered a judgment citing part of the counterclaim, but dismissed the appeal (hereinafter “instant judgment”).

B) At the same time with the Plaintiff’s implementation of the procedure for change of the name of the owner of the building on the second and sixth underground floors located in the instant land, and with respect to the Plaintiff’s KRW 450,00,000, and the amount calculated by applying the rate of 5% per annum from December 31, 1999 to April 26, 200, and 25% per annum from the next day to the date of complete payment, ② 5% per annum from May 13, 200 to November 22, 200, and 25% per annum from the next day to November 22, 200, respectively, to the Plaintiff as to the instant land. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 17065, Dec. 22, 2000; Presidential Decree No. 17065, May 13, 200; Presidential Decree No. 17069, Dec. 9, 200>

3B filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff such as seeking the cancellation of the above right to collateral security.