Seoul High Court 2014Nu3343 (2014.09.30)

The early 2011 middle 2143

(A) If there is no objective evidence, it shall not be recognized as acquisition value.

(In the original instance), it is difficult to confirm whether the actual acquisition value of the disputed land alleged by the claimant is actually paid by means of a check payment, etc., and it is not proven as objective evidence that the fact of payment, etc. is not proven.

Article 96 of the Income Tax Act

2014Nu3343 Revocation of disposition of imposing capital gains tax

IsaA

Head of Namyang District Tax Office

Suwon District Court Decision 2012Gudan1899 Decided February 17, 2014

September 2, 2014

September 30, 2014

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and each part of the imposition of the capital gains tax belonging to 2008 imposed by the defendant against the plaintiff on March 1, 201, exceeding the OOOOO won among the imposition of the capital gains tax belonging to 2008 and the imposition of the OOOO won for the portion belonging to 2009 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: 2. Na., the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, which is the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, is the same as the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the modification as set forth below. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article

2. The part to be mard;

B. Determination on key issues 1

In light of the purport of the Plaintiff’s respective arguments on the purchase price No. 3, 5, and No. 1 and 4, the Plaintiff’s disposal of each of the instant land was conducted through a reinvestigation based on the Plaintiff’s objection to the transfer income tax, and the actual transfer price of the instant land was stated as OO’s KRW 1 and 2, and submitted the relevant contract to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the purchase price of the instant land was KRW 1, 3, and 4, and that there was no difference between the Plaintiff’s purchase price and KRW 1, 2, and 00, OO’s purchase price and KRW 1,00,000, KRW 1,000, KRW 2,000, KRW 1,000, KRW 2,000, KRW 1,000, KRW 2,000, KRW 1,000, KRW 2,000, KRW 1,000.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed, and the judgment of the court of first instance with the same conclusion is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.