Early High Court Decision 201Du1742 (Law No. 11, 2011)

Since it has ratified the act of trading by an unentitled person, its effect shall take effect retroactively to the point of time of contract.

Although the Dong name, who is an unentitled person, concluded a sales contract with the union for real estate owned by the plaintiff and completed the registration of transfer of ownership, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff ratified the sales contract of the unentitled person and the act of real right pursuant thereto by agreement through the lawsuit with the union. Such ratification takes effect retrospectively at the time of the contract.

2011Guhap1984 Disposition of revocation of imposition of capital gains tax and local income tax

The person taking charge of the action of the State.

Head of the District Tax Office

November 2, 2012

January 18, 2013

1. The Defendant’s imposition disposition of KRW 000 on February 1, 201 against the Plaintiff on February 1, 201 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same as paragraph (1) is the same (the statement in the complaint on February 9, 2011 seems to be a clerical error).

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 21, 1965, thisA acquired and owned 119 square meters of a road of 000 OOdong, Mapo-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. Around March 31, 2005, the OEar District Housing Association (hereinafter referred to as the "OEM Housing Association") started a housing reconstruction project in the Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul OOdong region including the instant real estate, and a copy of the register of the instant real estate entered only the name of the owner into a sales contract with a third party with this title (hereinafter referred to as "sales contract with a third party") and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant real estate on June 10, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as "registration of this case").

C. Accordingly, thisA filed a lawsuit against the O Housing Association on February 7, 2006 against the O Housing Association for the claim for ownership transfer registration on the ground of the restoration of real name, and won in the first instance (Seoul Western District Court 2006Kadan10661) and the second instance (Seoul Western District Court 2006Na6137). However, the Supreme Court decided to sell the instant real estate at KRW 00 on March 3, 2008 between the O Housing Association and the Seoul Western District Court, while the lawsuit is pending, and thisA voluntarily withdrawn the said lawsuit after receiving KRW 00 on the same day.

D. On April 30, 2008, thisA filed a return after the due date on June 10, 2004, the transfer value, and 000 won (standard market price) and paid KRW 000,00.

E. On February 1, 2011, the Defendant considered the time of transfer on March 3, 2008, and the transfer value as KRW 000, and notified thisG of KRW 000 of the transfer income tax for the year 2008 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

F. ThisA filed an administrative appeal against this on April 11, 2011, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on July 11, 2011.

(g) ThisA was killed on January 13, 2012, and the only heir of the Plaintiff, who is a dependent of thisA.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 through 3, and evidence 6 (if available, the number shall be included, and hereinafter the same shall apply), and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Retroactive effect of an act of disposal by an unentitled person

ThisA recognizes the registration of this case as lawful and effective through an agreement between the O's Association on March 3, 2008, and accordingly, the sale and purchase and transfer registration of this case with the third party, which is an act of disposal by the unentitled person, shall be deemed to have been completed, and the registration of this case shall be deemed to have been retroactively effective, and the transfer income tax shall be calculated according to the standard market price of 2004, which is the date of the registration of this case, as of June 10, 2004.

2) Violation of the principle of trust protection.

On April 30, 2008, before reporting and paying transfer income tax, thisA made inquiries about this case on the website of the National Tax Service and paid it accordingly, and the instant disposition imposed after three years have elapsed.

3) A deviation from and abuse of discretionary power

In full view of the fact that thisA had no intention to evade or evade taxes, and that thisA has proceeded for a considerable period of time in order to recover the real estate in this case, and that this case’s agreement reflects consolation money for mental damage caused by litigation, etc., the Defendant’s disposition in this case is unlawful as it deviates from or abused discretion.

(iv)the necessary cost deduction;

Even if the disposition of this case is lawful, thisA appointed a defense counsel for the above lawsuit, paid the fees of KRW 000 and the contingent fees of KRW 000,000, and paid KRW 000 as a honorarium to this H who first informed about the real estate of this case, and the above KRW 000 should be additionally deducted.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

(2) The previous 6AEM 1 and the previous 6AE 1 were 60, and the previous 6AE 1 were 60,000,000,000 won were 70,000,000 won were 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,000,000,00,000,00,000,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.