Suwon District Court-2017-Gu Group-8358 ( October 27, 2017)

The plaintiff needs to prove that the sales price will properly reflect the market price six months after the commencement date of the inheritance.

Since the sales price is 6 months after the date of commencing the inheritance, there is a need to prove that the plaintiff's assertion that the price properly reflects the market price as of the date of commencing the inheritance, so long as the requirements prescribed in the latter part of Article 60 (2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and Article 49

Article 97 (Calculation of Necessary Expenses for Transfer Income)

2017Nu80877 The revocation of disposition rejecting capital gains tax rectification

○ ○

○ Head of tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2017Gudan8358 Decided October 27, 2017

oly 16, 2018

oly 16, 2018

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 rejection of correction of KRW 53,916,440 to the plaintiff on March 16, 2017 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the dismissal or addition of part of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in the following Paragraph 2. Thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts used or added;

Article 95 (5) of the Income Tax Act is Article 97 (5) of the Income Tax Act, and Article 46 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act of the 6th 12th 'the 13th 'the 13th 'the 13th 'the 13th 'the 13th 'the 5th 'the 13th 'the 6th

The part of the 8th judgment of the first instance court that "** is in progress because it is designated as a zone for housing reconstruction and improvement," and the part of the 8th judgment "(the plaintiff) was designated as a zone for housing reconstruction and improvement," and the 19th last part of the 8th judgment "(the plaintiff is **** because the construction has not been in progress after the designation as a rearrangement zone, so there is no possibility for the purchaser to purchase the land of this case at a price higher than objective exchange value. However, according to the evidence No. 10 and evidence No. 11-1, the above * the construction of old and inferior buildings * the construction of old and inferior buildings * the implementation of the housing reconstruction and improvement project due to poor residential environment such as poor maintenance infrastructure and poor improvement of roads and parks, etc. * there is no possibility that the purchaser of the land of this case can purchase the land of this case at the time of the cancellation of the designation of the rearrangement zone * there is no possibility that the purchaser of this case can purchase the land of this case * the construction of this case 24th.

3. 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 in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.