Seoul Administrative Court 201Gudan10723 ( August 17, 2011)

early 2011west0350 ( October 31, 2011)

The reason for apartment acquisition is recognized as payment in kind for the debt of division of property.

According to the mediation clause of divorce lawsuit, since the contents to be performed by division of property are money rather than real estate, and the transfer of apartment ownership is replaced by the transfer of apartment ownership, the transfer of apartment ownership is not a division of property, but a payment for the debt of the division of property, so the acquisition of the spouse's acquisition of acquisition

Article 98 of the Income Tax Act

2011Nu3414 Revocation of disposition of imposing capital gains tax

XX

Head of Yongsan Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2011Gudan10723 decided August 17, 2011

March 28, 2012

April 25, 2012

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 on October 11, 2010 against the Plaintiff on October 11, 201 shall be revoked.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 to the Plaintiff on October 11, 2010 shall be revoked.

1. The part citing the judgment of the court of first instance

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the following, on January 2 of the reasons for the entry with respect to the instant case: (a) whether the instant disposition is legitimate; (b) whether the Plaintiff’s assertion is legitimate; and (b) not later than the fact of recognition (the second to the fourth to the fourth to the fourth), as follows. Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act:

O's second 8th of the 2nd 8th 2009's "acquisition value" is added to 000 won following the 1st 2009.

From the 13th to the 11th anniversary of the 2nd 11st marity of theO, the following amounts:

The acquisition value of the apartment of this case on September 1, 2010 shall be KRW 000,000, which is the conversion value of the acquisition value on July 23, 2004, and the total determined amount of capital gains tax for the year 2009, shall be KRW 000,000, and the tax amount calculated by deducting KRW 00,000, which is the payable tax amount, shall be the tax amount

O A list of real estate and attached Form 1 shall be added at the end of the written judgment.

2. Part to be used again; and

C. Determination

If the plaintiff's acquisition of the apartment of this case is "property division", the acquisition value that is deducted in the calculation of the transfer margin of the apartment of this case is 000 won, which is the conversion value of the apartment of this case, as of July 23, 2004, and 'payment in substitution for the payment of property debt division' is 'payment in substitution for the payment of property debt division' as of June 1, 2009, where the plaintiff acquired the apartment of this case.

The key issue of the instant case is whether the cause of the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant apartment from thisA is a division of property or whether it is a substitute payment for the payment of the debt for division of property owed by thisA to the Plaintiff. For the following reasons, it is reasonable to view the cause of the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant apartment as a payment in kind (the instant apartment was completed on June 1, 2009 on the ground of the division of property on January 25, 2008). Even if the cause of the instant apartment is not the payment in kind, but the cause of the Plaintiff’s transfer of property is not the payment in kind, but the division of property should not be evaluated as the

① After having been sentenced to the Seoul Family Court Decision 2005Dhap4062, the Plaintiff rendered a decision on performance of KRW 000 as a division of property, and then re-determined in the first sentence of Article 13(1) of the appellate court’s conciliation clause to “the amount that the Defendant (AA) is liable to pay to the Plaintiff” to the Plaintiff, the sum of KRW 000, KRW 000, and KRW 000-----3,00. Therefore, the content that the Plaintiff is liable to pay to the Plaintiff as a division of property is not real estate. This is all the same in light of the fact that

② The latter part of the conciliation clause states that the transfer of ownership of the apartment in this case is substituted by the transfer of ownership of the apartment in this case. The transfer of ownership of the apartment in this case is not substituted by the transfer of ownership of the apartment in this case, but by the transfer of ownership of the apartment in this case.

(3) According to the conciliation clause(2), thisA shall pay the Plaintiff the maximum amount of the loan the apartment of this case secured by the instant apartment. This is based on the premise that thisA is liable to pay the Plaintiff the money in division of property.

④ In light of the latter part of Paragraph 1, which provides that the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant apartment as property division within 14 days from the date the conciliation of the instant case was completed, the Defendant (AA) entered the cause of the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant apartment as if the property was the property division rather than the payment in kind. However, in light of the latter part of Paragraph 1, which provides that “The property division is substituted by the transfer of the ownership of the instant apartment as described in the latter part of Paragraph 3, it shall be deemed that Paragraph 3 should be performed within 14 days from the date the conciliation was completed, as a provision embodying the performance of the payment in kind as described in the latter part of Paragraph 1, as a provision specifying the performance of the payment in kind as mentioned in the latter part of Paragraph 3. The term “property division” as mentioned in Paragraph 3

"If the acquisition date of the apartment of this case is on June 1, 2009, necessary expenses, such as acquisition value, are 000 won. Accordingly, the transfer income tax is the same as the amount stated in the column of "justifiable disposition" in the attached Table 2009, "the details of calculation of transfer income tax corresponding to that of the attached Table," and the conclusion that the disposition of this case is unlawful."

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 to the Plaintiff on October 11, 2010 shall be revoked.