National Tax Service Review and Transfer 2011-0061 ( October 27, 2011)

It seems that the shares of real estate have not been unregistered to the co-owner;

In light of the fact that the plaintiff's share is unregistered to the co-owner and the co-owner has sold the real estate to the co-owner, and the co-owner has sold the real estate to the whole real estate on his/her own, and the co-owner has sold the real estate on his/her own by pre-sale.

2011Guhap2639 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

Ansan

Daejeon director of the tax office

May 23, 2012

June 27, 2012

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 for the year 2005 against the Plaintiff on December 1, 2010 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 19, 2004, the Plaintiff entered into a real estate sales contract (hereinafter referred to as the “instant sales contract”) with a 1/2 of the shares, with a view to purchasing a real estate of KRW 00,964 square meters and a house of KRW 212.72 square meters and a house of KRW 2,12.72 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “the instant real estate”) from a woodB, with a view to 1/2 of the shares, respectively.

B. A. On August 2, 2004, the rightA entered into a real estate sales contract with the ParkCC to sell the instant real estate at KRW 000,000, and on July 19, 2005, the rightA completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of ParkCC.

C. After a field investigation was conducted on the transfer of the instant real property, the Defendant determined that the Plaintiff and the IC on August 2, 2004 sold the instant real property without registration and filed a non-report on the transfer income tax, and notified the Plaintiff and the IC of each decision regarding KRW 000 of the transfer income tax for the year 2005.

D. On February 24, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a request for review with the National Tax Service on February 24, 201, but was dismissed on May 27, 2011.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence l through 3, 5 (including each number), Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although the Plaintiff received KRW 000,000 from the seller’s woodenB, it was not a penalty for breach of the seller’s default, which was caused by the seller’s non-performance of the contract, and was not a result of unregistered resale gains. Since, after the cancellation of the contract of this case, the Plaintiff did not participate in the process of purchase of the instant real estate from the GB with the arrangements of the GB after the cancellation of the contract of this case, the instant disposition based on the premise of such different facts should be revoked illegally.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Article 547(1) of the Civil Act provides that if one or both of the parties has a number of parties, the termination or rescission of the contract shall be made against all or some of them. Thus, a declaration of intention by one of the joint buyers alone does not have the effect of rescission of the contract.

On the other hand, there is no evidence to prove that the authority AA, which jointly purchased the instant real estate with the Plaintiff, intended to cancel the instant sales contract. Thus, the instant sales contract cannot be rescinded, and the Plaintiff’s assertion on the premise that the instant sales contract was rescinded is without merit.

(2) The Defendant, under the premise that the Plaintiff would have acquired gains from transfer of 00 won by resale of the instant real estate in collaboration with NAA, was aware that the instant real estate was disposed of by 00 won, and the Plaintiff concluded the instant sales contract with 1/2 of the shares on May 19, 204 with NA, with each of the instant real estate purchased 00 won from NA. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff was present at the 2, 3, and the witness testimony, and 2, 300 won for the entire pleadings, and the Plaintiff did not have obtained 00 won for the instant real estate under the premise that the instant real estate was disposed of by NA, and the Plaintiff was not aware of the ownership of 2,00 won for the instant real estate in the instant real estate under the name of NA as a witness to 2,00 won for the instant real estate, and the Plaintiff did not have obtained 2,000 won for the instant real estate in the name of NA as a witness to 2,000 evidence.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.