Suwon District Court 2012Guhap820 ( October 12, 2012)

early 201J 2461 ( November 02, 2011)

It is legitimate to regard the time of acquisition as the time of taking over the collateral collateral obligation of the exchanged real estate and taking over its possession.

It is legitimate that the date on which the actual right to dispose of the building was acquired by taking over the collateral security debt established on the exchange real estate and completely transferring the possession thereof, and that the date on which the actual right to dispose of the building was acquired is the date of liquidation

2012Nu35759 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

AAA

Head of Sungnam Tax Office

Suwon District Court Decision 2012Guhap820 Decided October 12, 2012

April 12, 2013

May 10, 2013

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are incidental to the plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 against the plaintiff on December 15, 2010.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for this decision are as follows: "Before June 2004, Act No. 11, No. 4, No. 11, 2004" shall be determined as "Before June 2004," and the following paragraph (2) shall be added to not more than 14, as stated in the first instance judgment.

2. The addition;

In calculating the transfer income tax of this case, the plaintiff applied Article 162 (1) 31 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, which provides for the time of acquisition of assets subject to long-term installment sale on the ground that it is unclear "the date of liquidation of the balance of the exchange contract of this case" to the defendant, the plaintiff considered the time of acquisition on June 9, 2004, which was delivered to the building of this case from SongB, which is in violation of the principle of strict interpretation, and it is alleged that it is unlawful in violation of the principle of no taxation without law that provides for the principle of no taxation without law that provides the principle of strict interpretation. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff acquired the transfer income tax of this case by receiving the exchange contract of this case from SongB around June 9, 204, 200, and 1 and 2, 1 and 3, 2, and 3, and the testimony of the witnessCC of the first instance trial, and it is not reasonable to recognize that the plaintiff acquired the transfer income tax of this case from the above 20.

3. Conclusion

Then, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.