Seoul Administrative Court 2012Gudan20680 ( October 23, 2014)

Whether the Plaintiff actually paid the instant amount to the remodeling construction cost, which is capital expenditure

(1) In full view of the fact that the Plaintiff did not confirm the fact that the instant amount was paid as remodeling construction expenses, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have paid the said amount as capital expenses and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Article 97 of the Income Tax Act

Seoul High Court 2013Nu30010 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

○ ○

○ Head of tax office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Gudan20680 decided October 2, 2013

April 23, 2014

May 14, 2014

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The decision of the first instance court is revoked. The imposition of capital gains tax on the Plaintiff X, E. X. is revoked. The imposition of capital gains tax on the Plaintiff is revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's ruling is as follows, except for the part to be determined additionally in the following paragraphs, and as such, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

O The second 3rd of the judgment of the first instance court is 250,000 won in the case of the second 3rd, and the "the cost of the school only" shall be 250,000,000 won.

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff asserted that, at the time of the preparation of the quotation, written contract, and deposit sheet, Kim Jong-chul used the trade name between △△ Housing and △△ Housing at the same time, the Plaintiff is not acceptable in light of the written statements in subparagraphs 4 and 5 of Article 4.

B. The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that, at the time of the purchase of the instant apartment, the amount of interest on the loan and the penalty that had been spent on the wind to cancel the sales contract should be deducted from the transfer value, if the Plaintiff sold to a third party before the transfer of the instant apartment.

However, the above interest or penalty on the loan is not directly related to the transfer of the apartment of this case, but not to be necessary expenses under Article 97 of the Income Tax Act. Thus, the gross income from the above transfer is not deducted from the gross income (transfer value) or treated as necessary expenses (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Du15380, Sept. 20, 2007). The plaintiff's above assertion cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.