Chuncheon District Court 201Guhap1526, 0101

Tax Tribunal (Tax Tribunal 201.06.17) 1525

It is difficult to recognize that the acquisition price of real estate was paid additionally.

In light of the fact that no objective financial data consistent with the argument is submitted, it is difficult to recognize that the transferee has agreed to deduct the amount of money lent to the transferor from the purchase price because there is no entry in the sales contract on the grounds of the claim and obligation between the transferor and the transferor, or on the specific amount of money, etc.

Article 97 (Calculation of Necessary Expenses of Capital Gains)

(Chuncheon)Revocation of disposition of revocation of imposition of capital gains tax 2013Nu135

IsaA

Chuncheon Director of the Tax Office

Chuncheon District Court Decision 201Guhap1526 Decided January 18, 2013

November 27, 2013

December 11, 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 imposition of OOO(including additional tax) made by the Defendant on March 7, 201 to the Plaintiff on March 7, 201 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's explanation on the instant case is identical to the entry of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The plaintiff argued that on March 10, 2004, the transfer of the sales contract of this case, KimB, the plaintiff agreed to deduct the OB Won borrowed from the plaintiff from the sales price, and that on March 25, 2004, the OB paid OB the remainder as OB.

The following circumstances are met: ① The instant real estate was registered on March 22, 2004 under the name of the Plaintiff on the ground of sale and purchase on February 25, 2004, and the ownership transfer registration was made on March 22, 2004, and the seal of the Plaintiff was not written on March 25, 2004, and the seal of the Plaintiff was not written on February 25, 2004, and it is natural to view the Plaintiff as the date of the instant sales contract the remainder of the purchase and sale of the pertinent real estate (including number B), and the Plaintiff’s remaining purchase and sale of the instant real estate was not written on February 25, 204, and there is no possibility that the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff asserted in the sales contract, was written on March 22, 2004, and there is no possibility that the Plaintiff would have been written on February 25, 204, which is the witness of the first instance court, to the effect that it was written on the 5-O.

2. Conclusion

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