Seoul Administrative Court 2012Gudan15312 ( October 30, 2013)

A disposition that denies a report made at the conversion price of a building and corrected as an actual acquisition price shall be a legitimate

(As in the first instance judgment, the Plaintiff reported the conversion value on the ground that the acquisition value of the building is unknown, but the disposition that calculated the real acquisition value based on the Plaintiff’s real estate lease book value, balance sheet, construction contract statement, etc. is legitimate.

2013Nu3130 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

The AA

The director of the tax office.

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Gudan15312 decided October 30, 2013

June 3, 2014

June 17, 2014

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

In the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning the primary claim is revoked, and the imposition of OOO(including additional tax) for the transfer income tax for the year 2010, which belongs to the Plaintiff on September 16, 2011 is revoked (the court of first instance dismissed the plaintiff's primary claim, and the plaintiff appealed only with respect to the dismissal of the plaintiff's primary claim, so the judgment on the plaintiff's conjunctive claim in the judgment of the court of first instance was excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court)

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following cases, since Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act are the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. Parts of the plan (1. Details of the plan); and

"A. On December 28, 2005, the Plaintiff acquired OO-Gu O-dong 90-3 large 215.5 square meters (hereinafter "the instant land") from OB from O-si, O-si, O-si, and newly constructed a building 454.43 square meters (hereinafter "the instant building") on the ground, and completed registration of preservation of ownership on February 15, 2007, and transferred the above land and building (hereinafter "the instant real estate") on October 22, 2010.

C. On September 16, 2011, the Defendant issued a notice of correction and notification of the acquisition value of the instant land: (i) OOOO won (a) the acquisition value of the instant building is the OOO won; (ii) the real acquisition value of the instant building is the OOO won; (b) the Plaintiff, on September 16, 2011, of the transfer income tax for the year 2010 (i.e., the determined tax amount + the determined tax amount + the OOO won for additional tax + the OOOO won for additional tax + the voluntarily paid tax amount).

D. After that, the Defendant confirmed that the actual amount of the Plaintiff’s tax paid is not an OO member, but an OO member. On October 13, 2011, the Defendant determined to impose and collect the unpaid amount of tax (this tax) after filing a return, while the Defendant decided to increase the amount of the additional additional tax as the OO member, but did not notify the Plaintiff of the decision.

E. However, on February 9, 2012, the Defendant again reduced the acquisition value of the instant land to KRW OO(the foregoing acquisition value is recognized as KRW OO(the foregoing acquisition value is recognized as KRW OOO) and ② On the premise that the actual acquisition value of the instant building is recognized as the necessary expense, the Defendant reduced the amount of OOO won from the transfer income tax for the year 2010 against the Plaintiff, thereby reducing the amount of 2010 capital gains tax imposed on the Plaintiff on September 16, 201, thereby reducing the imposition of capital gains tax for the Plaintiff as KRW OO(including additional tax).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, evidence Nos. 27 through 31, Eul evidence No. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.