양도소득세부과처분취소
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. Defendant Seocho Tax Office’s Head of Seocho Tax Office’s 5,353,881 won against the Plaintiffs on December 1, 2013, 208.
1. The reasons why the court should explain in this part are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (from No. 3 to No. 6). Thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The legal doctrine on imposition of penalty taxes under tax law is an administrative sanction imposed, as prescribed by the Act, in cases where a taxpayer violates various obligations, such as reporting and tax payment, as prescribed by the Act without justifiable grounds, in order to facilitate the exercise of a taxation right and the realization of a taxation right.
Therefore, in a case where there is a justifiable reason for not being able to cause the failure of the taxpayer to perform his/her duties due to a conflict of opinion due to a doubt in the interpretation of tax law beyond a simple scope of land or misunderstanding in the construction of tax law, such sanctions cannot be imposed if there is a justifiable reason for not being able to cause the failure of the taxpayer to perform his/her duties, such as when there is a circumstance that it is unreasonable to expect the party to perform his/her duties, or when there
(Supreme Court Decision 2016Du44711 Decided October 27, 2016). B.
The key issue of the instant case is: (a) on October 18, 2002, the fact-finding confirmed by the instant evidence; (b) on the instant real estate on October 18, 2002, the network G donated 7/10 shares to Plaintiff D, the south-gu Seoul, about H 330.3 square meters of the instant real estate, and the underground 1st and third-class buildings above the ground; and (c) on November 7, 2003, the remaining 3/10 shares were donated to Plaintiff A, the south-gu, respectively; and (d) after the completion of the registration pursuant thereto, the instant real estate was registered under a title trust with Plaintiff D on June 25, 1975; and (e) on October 20, 1976, each of the registrations under each of the instant donations were completed in such a way that Plaintiff D completed the registration of ownership transfer for 3/10 shares to Plaintiff A.
As the deceased on July 30, 2006 died, the deceased on July 30, 2006, the deceased I (Death around October 2012) and the plaintiff B, C, and F, who are their ancillarys, shall be the deceased on July 3, 2007.