Gwangju District Court-2017-Gu Partnership-1459 (2018.07)

Maritime Affairs- 2017-Mining-0460 ( March 23, 2017)

It cannot be deemed that there was a justifiable reason for not being negligent in the failure to pay taxes due to the lack of the method to know the acquisition value of the acquired land by the written decision of permission for successful bid.

The disposition of this case, which was imposed after correcting the acquisition value based on the successful bid price, is legitimate because it is clear that the land acquired through the successful bid is acquired in the auction procedure, and the written decision of granting the successful bid was kept in a court

Article 97 of the former Income Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 14389, Dec. 27, 2016); Article 176-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act; Article 47 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Gwangju High Court 2018Nu5023 Revocation of disposition to correct capital gains tax

AA

BB Director of the Tax Office

on October 018 06, 201

October 18, 2018

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu and purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 2,487,834,520 against the Plaintiff on November 8, 2016 by the Defendant shall be revoked.

1. Recognizing the judgment of the first instance;

The court's explanation on this case is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for additional determination as follows. Thus, the court's explanation on this case is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

○ From 7 13 up to 16 lines shall be modified as follows:

① Certified Tax AccountantsJ, acting on behalf of the Plaintiff, issued documents verifying the successful bid price at the court and viewing that the Plaintiff should report the acquisition of the land in this case by auction, knowing that the Plaintiff acquired the land in this case by auction, and submitted them to the Plaintiff.

○ 2. The following shall be added to the 8th line:

The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that there is justifiable reason that the Plaintiff paid the tax at the conversion price at the time of transfer by consultation on the same land (as of November 24, 2014) and the second (as of November 2014), with respect to the same land. According to the foregoing evidence, the Plaintiff transferred 1,117/10,00 of the acquired land at KR on July 8, 2014 for the following reasons: (a) on the grounds of an agreement on the acquisition of public land; and (b) on November 24, 2014, on the transfer of land for the same reason, the transfer income tax was paid at the conversion price rather than the successful bid price. However, since the instant disposition was not a personal consolidated investigation on the Plaintiff; (c) as a result of comprehensive audit on the Dtax subject to the transfer income tax for 2015, the transfer income tax base and the acquisition price for 2015 cannot be deemed to have been determined within the exclusion period of imposition of the transfer income tax for 2015 years.

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiff asserts that since the real estate acquired in the 90s is customary to recognize the acquisition value as the conversion value, it is against the principle of equality to recognize the successful bid price rather than the conversion value only at the time of imposing transfer income tax on the plaintiff only.

B. In full view of the evidence evidence No. 26 of the above evidence and the purport of the entire argument, the plaintiff

The fact that a public official in charge of the DD Tax Affairs who reviewed the transfer income tax return has prepared a written response to the effect that the real estate acquired in the 90s for the 90s for the audit of the CC's regional tax office is customarily converted.

C. However, the above reply is merely merely an entry of the reasons why the public official in charge recognizes his negligence and a vindication for him. Since the property tax and work experience are viewed as an individual opinion by the public official in charge who is about eight months, it is difficult to acknowledge that there was a practice as alleged by the plaintiff only with the above reply, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion to the effect that

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be dismissed.

As the conclusion is justified, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.