Daegu District Court-2014-Gu Partnership-21471 ( October 28, 2015)

Review Transfer 2013-0234 (O3. 18, 2014)

Since the real estate has been transferred by fraud or other improper means, such as preparing a false transfer contract, the exclusion period for 10 years shall apply.

It is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff constitutes a deceptive scheme or other active act, as it does not simply report under the tax law or make a false report, but submits to the Defendant a false contract for the transfer of the right to purchase the instant land, thereby making it impossible or considerably difficult to impose and collect taxes on the transfer of the right to purchase the instant land (the same as the judgment of the court of first instance).

2015Nu4601

KimA

BB Director of the Tax Office

January 28, 2015

June 19, 2015

August 21, 2015

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant's disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 89,686,400 against the plaintiff on July 1, 2013 shall be revoked (the date of disposition of the complaint and the petition of appeal shall be deemed to be a clerical error on July 4, 2013).

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The grounds for the plaintiff's assertion in the trial while filing an appeal are not significantly different from the contents of the plaintiff's assertion in the first instance court, and the first instance court's decision rejecting the plaintiff's assertion is justified even if both the evidence submitted in the first instance court and the purport of the whole arguments in the first instance court and the first instance

Therefore, the court's explanation of this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the dismissal of some contents as follows. Thus, it is citing this as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The "Framework Act on National Taxes" in the fourth fifth judgment of the court of first instance shall be "former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 12848, Dec. 23, 2014; hereinafter "Framework Act on National Taxes")."

On September 13, 2007, the first instance court's decision No. 5 held that "The HighCC, etc. entered into a contract to transfer the right of sale of this case in the name of the plaintiff to leddddddddddds, etc. during the plaintiff's attendance on September 13, 2007," which read "The HighCC, etc. entered into a contract to transfer the right of sale of this case in the name of the plaintiff to leddds, etc. on September 13, 2007, and entered into a contract to transfer the right of sale in the name of the plaintiff on September 27, 2007."

On September 27, 2007, when the plaintiff was present, the court of first instance entered into a contract to transfer the right to sell this case in the name of the plaintiff to leddddddddddddddddddddds, etc. on September 13, 2007. On September 27, 2007, the court of first instance entered into a contract to transfer the right to sell this case in the name of the plaintiff. On September 27, 2007, the court of first instance entered into a contract to transfer the right to sell this case in the name of the plaintiff to ledddds, etc.

○ The "Framework Act on National Taxes" of the 10th sentence of the first instance judgment is the "former Framework Act on National Taxes (wholly amended by Act No. 12848, Dec. 23, 2014)".

2. 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 conclude this conclusion.

Inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s appeal is justifiable, it is dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.