logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2020.07.08 2020구단54480
양도소득세부과처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. As to the instant land, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the Plaintiff’s future on the grounds of sale on May 23, 2012 (hereinafter “the instant land was divided into D Forest No. 3,99 square meters on February 27, 2014, and D Forest No. 1,299 square meters on March 26, 2014 and E Forest No. 2,691 square meters on the land”). On February 19, 2013, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the Plaintiff’s future on the grounds of sale on May 23, 2012.

B. As to the completion of the ownership transfer registration as above with respect to the instant land, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff transferred the instant land to C, and on November 1, 2013, determined and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 240,867,670 (including additional tax) of the transfer income tax for the year 2013.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is merely against the title trustee of the instant land, and neither the Plaintiff nor the title truster C sold the instant land.

Therefore, the instant land is not the fact that it was transferred, and it is not the subject of transfer as a title trustee, and thus is not the actual owner of capital gains.

The instant disposition is null and void because it is not only without subject of taxation but also has a grave and apparent defect as it violates the principle of substantial taxation.

B. 1) In order for an administrative disposition to be deemed null and void as a matter of course, the mere fact that there is an illegality in the disposition is insufficient, and the defect is a serious violation of the relevant laws and regulations and should be objectively apparent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da24646, Nov. 15, 2007). Meanwhile, a taxation disposition is imposed on a person who does not have any factual relation, such as the legal relation or income or act, which is subject to taxation, even though the defect is grave and obvious.

arrow