Seoul Administrative Court-2015-Gu Group-52 (20 April 2016)

Seocho 2014west 3758 ( November 25, 2014)

Testimony of a witness concerning necessary expenses is difficult to believe and be recognized only by the evidence of a taxpayer, or there is no evidence.

(As in the judgment of the first instance), recognizing the necessity of proof to a taxpayer is consistent with the concept of fairness. The testimony of the witness of this case is difficult to believe that the testimony of the witness of this case is insufficient to recognize necessary expenses or there is no evidence.

Article 98 of the Income Tax Act

2016Nu4898 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

BB

Samsung Head of Samsung Tax Office

August 30, 2016

October 11, 2016

1. The defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's incidental appeal are dismissed, respectively.

2. The appeal costs and incidental appeal costs shall be borne respectively by each person;

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 692,581,940 (including additional tax) for the Plaintiff on May 1, 2014, in excess of KRW 544,169,780, shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

3. Purport of incidental appeal;

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff shall be revoked. The defendant's disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 492,581,940 (including additional tax) for the plaintiff on May 1, 2014 shall be revoked in 120,872,628.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court’s explanation on the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition of the following to the judgment of the first instance. Thus, Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, the Civil Procedure Act

420 shall be quoted by means of the main sentence of Article 420.

The third decision of the court of first instance shall be as follows: 5.17.

Under the fourth page, “documents prepared 5” (the contents are not related to the premium of the sales right of this case, as seen later, with regard to the method of distributing profits other than brokerage commission, transfer income, and investment amount of Park Jong-gu from the transfer proceeds of the sales right of this case not to be related to the premium of the sales right of this case)

Under the fifth judgment of the first instance court, the second instance “△△△△△△” received from the Plaintiff, and then received certification of the content leading the Plaintiff to receive KRW 70,00,000 from the brokerage commission of the contract for the transfer of the sales right of this case. In the process of witness examination, the questioning was conducted to induce the above statement, but consistently therewith.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's incidental appeal are groundless.

each of them is dismissed.