Seoul Administrative Court-2017-Gu Partnership-62785 ( December 22, 2017)

Whether the retroactive effect of cancellation is recognized in cases where ownership is returned to the termination of the agreement on the sales contract of another house after imposition of capital gains tax.

After the imposition of capital gains tax, the termination of the agreement on the third house sales contract, which is not the house concerned, and the exercise of the right of rescission or an inevitable reason, does not constitute a ground for subsequent correction, and the retroactive effect of subsequent cancellation is not recognized.

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (Reduction or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax for Self-Cultivating Farmland)

2018Nu33966 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

○ Kim

○ Head of tax office

Seoul Administrative Court 2017Guhap62785 ( December 22, 2017)

May 10, 2018

May 31, 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 court shall be revoked. The disposition of imposition of KRW 523,05,493 and penalty KRW 122,653,622, which the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on November 1, 2016, shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, except for the dismissal or addition of some contents as follows, and thus, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of

Parts to be removed or added.

00-0, 000-0 ", 000........................................."

○ Part 2, Chapter 9, by inserting "00-0," adding "00-0, 000-0, 000-0, 000-00, 000-0, 000."

○ On the 2nd page, the following shall be added to the following acts:

E. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on January 25, 2017, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the said appeal on April 17, 2017.

○ On the 3rd page 1, the phrase “A No. 4” means “A. 1, 2, and 4”.

○ On the 3rd page, the phrase “assumpt 14” is added to the phrase “(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Nu7383, Aug. 22, 1995).”

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.