Seoul Administrative Court 2012Gudan12672 ( November 30, 2012)

National Tax Service Review and Transfer 201-0300 (203.09)

The disposition imposing capital gains tax is legitimate because the successful bid under the procedures of voluntary auction is deemed valid.

Since the right to collateral security has been established voluntarily without permission, the imposition disposition of capital gains tax on the successful bid is illegal, but the applicant for the voluntary auction procedure of real estate is higher than the right holder of the right to collateral security that the plaintiff claims that the right to collateral security is null and void, and it does not constitute

2013Nu2596 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

KimAAA

The head of Yangcheon Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Gudan12672 decided November 30, 2012

June 26, 2013

July 24, 2013

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. A port consumption shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 against the Plaintiff on July 2, 2011 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons why this court should explain, and except for addition to the following paragraphs, the decision on the argument that the plaintiff emphasizes in particular in this court is required to be cited in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act of Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, since it is the same as the reasons stated in the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case under the premise that the sale of this case is effective is unlawful, since the right to collateral security established on August 26, 2002 under the name of EO on the housing of this case was established arbitrarily without the plaintiff's consent.

In accordance with the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings adopted on the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance cited above, the applicant for an auction to exercise the security right to the housing of this case may limit the fact that he is a house lessee, KimOO, and the OO received 000 won of the amount of the credit as dividends in the distribution procedure as the right holder of the right to collateral security, even if the mortgage under the name of OO is null and void as the plaintiff's assertion, this does not constitute a ground for nullifying the sale in the above auction procedure requested by the bank of Korea and KimOO. Accordingly, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's appeal is without merit, it is dismissed.