Busan District Court 2016Guhap2206 ( December 29, 2016)

Unless it is deemed a construction business that has continuity and repetition to the extent that it can be seen as business activities, it is unreasonable to claim necessary expenses for the construction business unless it is deemed a construction business.

The argument that the income from the transfer of real estate is not continuous and repeated to the extent that it can be seen as business income, and that the claim that the income from the transfer of real estate is recognized as necessary expenses under the premise that the construction business is concerned is not reasonable, and it is not reasonable to view brokerage commission

Article 19 of the Income Tax Act, Scope of Transfer Income under Article 94 of the Income Tax Act

2017Nu20279 Revocation of disposition of imposing capital gains tax

AA

○ Head of tax office

Busan District Court Decision 2016Guhap2206 Decided December 29, 2016

on October 1, 2017

on October 21, 2016

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of 2014 on the Plaintiff on August 21, 2015 is revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this Court is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this Court cites this case as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (the plaintiff, in the first instance court, repeats the same argument in the first instance court, and even if the plaintiff examines some complementary arguments and reasons in the first instance court, the judgment of the

2. 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 as it is concluded, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.