Suwon District Court 201Guhap87, 2011.07

National Tax Service Review and Transfer 2010-0209 ( October 12, 2010)

the title trust of the apartment to Chok is a third house owner for one household.

(As with the judgment of the court of first instance) In order to avoid heavy taxation on capital gains tax pursuant to three houses for one household, apartment buildings shall be deemed to have been held in title trust to Chok for the purpose of avoiding heavy taxation. Therefore, the disposition imposed on the same premise by applying the heavy taxation rate of 60% is legitimate.

2011Nu28754 Revocation of imposition of capital gains tax

x 1 other

Head of the High Tax Office

Suwon District Court Decision 2011Guhap87 Decided July 19, 2011

March 27, 2012

April 13, 2012

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposing capital gains tax of KRW 000 for the year 2007 against the Plaintiffs on May 1, 2010 is revoked.

1. A cited part;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows, and the reasoning for this case is the same as that for the judgment of the court of the first instance. Thus, this Court’s explanation is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In the third part of the judgment of the court of first instance, the 5th "O" of the 3th part of the judgment of the court of first instance is isolated from "O apartment", and the 4th part of the 4th part "the land of this case" is isolated from "the apartment of this case".

In the 5th sentence of the first instance court, the following contents shall be inserted between the 5th sentence and the 12th sentence.

【Plaintiffs asserted to the effect that: (a) the time when the meta-man’s met meta-man’s meta-man’s meta-man’s meta-man’s meta-man’s meta-man’s meta-man’s meta-man’s meta-man’s meta-man’s meta-man’s meta-man’s meta-man’s meta-man’s meta-man’s meta-man’s meta-man’s meta-man’s application for the above lawsuit and related provisional disposition; (b) Plaintiff 12, 15 through 17, 18, 22 through 27, 29, 31, 32(a) (including the face number) was not the same as before the death; and (c) Plaintiff 12, 206 or 207, which was suffering from mental shock due to the death of Korea-A-man’s present apartment, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge each of the Plaintiffs’s assertion.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the conclusion of the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, and all appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.