Seocho 2010west 2160 ( October 24, 2010)

Since the amount disbursed for improvement cannot be verified, it shall not be deducted from the necessary expenses.

If the expenses paid for the change, improvement or convenience of the use of the transferred asset are claimed, but such expenses cannot be deducted from the necessary expenses if such expenses are not confirmed, and there is no evidence to confirm the amount disbursed for the improvement of the land, all or part of the improvement expenses shall not be deducted from the necessary expenses.

2010Gudan25452 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

XX

Head of the District Tax Office

December 2, 2011

December 9, 2011

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Each disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of 145,623,405 won for the year 2007, and capital gains tax of 52,442,150 won for the year 2008, which was made on July 5, 2010 by the Defendant against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff: (a) acquired on January 26, 2004, and transferred KRW 278,810,000 in total on December 10, 2007, KRW 278,810,000, KRW 383,000 in Pyeongtaek-gun, Gangwon-do; (b) the same Ri 927,00-00-0 in the same Ri 373 square meters in the same Ri; and (c) the total area of at least 000-00-00 square meters in the same Ri 415 square meters in the same Ri 2,098 in the land area; (c) but did not report and pay capital gains tax; (d) the Defendant did not consider the above land as land for non-business; and (d) applied the taxation rate of 60% in the aggregate to Plaintiff 2,009, KRW 3616,2746,2716,2846,297, and KRW 278164,275,29465.

B. The Plaintiff: (a) acquired on January 26, 200, 200-00, 419 square meters in the same Ri; (b) 000-00-00 square meters in the same Ri; (c) transferred on January 26, 2004; (d) transferred on January 8, 2008; (b) 4,885 square meters in the same Ri; (c) 4,00-0-00 and 498 square meters in the same Ri on January 26, 2004; (d) transferred 205 square meters in the same Ri on February 5, 2008; and (e) did not transfer 200-0-00-00 and 50-7 square meters in the transfer income tax to 2005 square meters in the same Ri; and (e) did not report and pay the transfer income tax to the Plaintiff on January 26, 2004.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without room, Gap's 1, 4, Eul's l or 9 (including above numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On November 2003, the Plaintiff purchased the land of this case Nos. 1 and 2, which is the land prior to the subdivision of the land of this case, in the amount of KRW 300,00,00,000,000 and KRW 18.964,00,00,000, which is the land prior to the subdivision of the land of this case, and performed earth construction to improve the land of this case before the subdivision and construct pent, etc., and disbursed the total construction cost of KRW 547,589,017. Such construction cost falls under the capital expenditure for the land of this case Nos. 1 and 2, and thus, the transfer loss should be deducted from the transfer value, and the transfer loss should be deducted from the transfer value. On a different premise, the Defendant’s imposition of the first and second dispositions of this case by the prior Defendant is unlawful.

B. Determination

In calculating gains on transfer of assets, if a taxpayer claims the deduction of expenses incurred for the alteration, improvement or convenience of the use of transferred assets, which is the capital expenditure to be deducted from the transfer value, and such expenditure is not confirmed, it cannot be deducted from the necessary expenses (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Nu3717, Sept. 12, 1989), and where the verified capital expenditure cannot be deducted from the necessary expenses (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Nu3717, Sept. 12, 1989), the evidence No. 6, and the evidence No. 12-1 through No. 12-12, as well as the testimony of a witness Ba cannot be confirmed, and there is no other evidence to verify it, the whole or part of the improvement expenditure claimed by the Plaintiff cannot be deducted from the necessary expenses. The Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit, and both the Defendant

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.