Incheon District Court 2012Guhap946 ( August 17, 2012)

early 201J 3551 ( December 01, 201)

There is no evidence to prove that the remodeling costs have been additionally paid.

In light of the fact that it is difficult to recognize necessary expenses as necessary expenses in light of the fact that it is difficult to report the necessary expenses at the time of reporting the transfer income tax on the remodeling construction expenses additionally claimed to have been paid, that there is no registered business operator in the relevant business type, and there is no specific construction details or schedule, nor the financial data on

2012Nu28072 Revocation of disposition of imposing capital gains tax

LAA

the director of the tax office of Western

Incheon District Court Decision 2012Guhap946 Decided August 17, 2012

February 21, 2013

March 14, 2013

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 on July 19, 201 against the plaintiff on July 19, 201 shall be revoked.

1. The reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance are reasonable, and thus, are cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. (However, the High Court Decision No. 11 dated 2011, No. 411, Dec. 2001

2. The plaintiff asserts that "B" 00 won was 1 to 5B, and that the plaintiff was 1 to 00 won for the first time, and that the plaintiff was 1 to 200 won for the construction cost for the remodeling project, and that the plaintiff was 1 to 30 won for the first time, and that the construction cost for the remodeling project was 1 to 30 won for the first time, and that the plaintiff was 1 to 30 won for the first time, and that there was no evidence that the construction cost for the remodeling project was 1 to 9 won for the first time, and that there was no evidence that the construction cost was 1 to 30 won for the first time, and that there was no evidence that the construction cost was 1 to 30 won for the first time, and that there was no evidence that the construction cost was 1 to 9 won for the first time, and that there was no evidence that the plaintiff had been 1 to 9 won for the first time, and that the construction cost was 9 won for the second time.