beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. A. Around 2005, “B” purchased a building No. 105 located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government as the Plaintiff’s introduction from HD Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “DD Construction”). On January 26, 2011, upon filing a transfer income tax report on March 15, 201, on the ground that the Plaintiff paid KRW 164,500,000 to the Plaintiff at the time of purchase as above, on the ground that the Plaintiff paid KRW 164,50,000 to the Plaintiff at the time of purchase.
B. Accordingly, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff did not report the transfer income tax even though the Plaintiff transferred the said real estate sales right to B in KRW 164,500,000, and on March 2, 2013, the Defendant issued the instant disposition against the Plaintiff on March 2, 2013, which rendered a decision and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 148,99,50 (including additional tax) of the transfer income tax for the year 200
[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 and 2-1 of Evidence No. 2
2. Whether the disposition is defective;
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) did not acquire the above real estate sales right and did not have any transfer thereof only to B. Although the Plaintiff was to receive KRW 164,500,000 from B on June 10, 2005 to the Plaintiff’s account, it was merely the Plaintiff received the sales contract deposit from B on behalf of the Plaintiff for the construction under subordinate construction and delivered it to subordinate construction, not the Plaintiff’s payment for the sale price. Nevertheless, the instant disposition made on a different premise is significant and apparent and invalid. (2) The Defendant merely concluded that the instant disposition against the Plaintiff was attributable to the Plaintiff only to the Plaintiff’s statement while rendering the instant disposition against the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff did not comply with the investigation method for determining the tax base and amount of capital gains tax, and thus, the instant disposition is null and void as a matter of course.
B. According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 3, Eul evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, 3, and Eul evidence Nos. 3-1, 2-2, and the whole pleadings, the plaintiff is entitled to the above real estate.