Suwon District Court-2013-Gu Group-1670 ( December 12, 2014)

Cho Jae-201-3051 ( December 21, 2012)

The balance is included in the money that the plaintiff paid as part payments.

Only on the same day, the entries in the receipts and documents No. A prepared by the purchaser are insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff paid the amount of the receipts to the purchaser, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Article 96 of the Income Tax Act

Seoul High Court-2015-Nu 31550 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

AA

O Head of tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2013Gudan1670 Decided December 12, 2014

on October 1, 2015

on June 16, 2015

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

2. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the cost of supplementary participation.

1. Purport of claim

On May 1, 2011, the Defendant’s imposition of OOO(including additional tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) for the transfer income tax for the year 2004, and the imposition of OOO(s) for the transfer income tax for the year 2010, respectively, revoked the part exceeding the OO(s) (the Plaintiff reduced the claim regarding the transfer income tax for the year 2004 by the Defendant’s correction of reduction).

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiff

The part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The part of the imposition of the capital gains tax belonging to the year 2004 against the plaintiff on May 1, 201 and the imposition of the capital gains tax belonging to the year 2010 shall be revoked, respectively.

B. Defendant

Paragraph (1) shall apply.

1. The part citing the judgment of the court of first instance

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as follows, except for the following part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

○ The following shall be added to not more than 7 pages 3:

In addition, the same mountain-3 was subject to registration conversion into 158-8 forest land of the same 158-8 m2, and on September 14, 2005, the ownership transfer registration was made in the O Si/O on the ground of the acquisition of public land on September 14, 2005, and the plaintiff received compensation (No. 28, 35 m2).

○ 3 pages 17 "No. 52028" means "No. 52028 and 52029".

○ 4 9 pages 9 "OO" shall be regarded as "OO".

○ 4 pages 15, the following shall be added to:

(j) On August 10, 2015, the Defendant changed capital gains tax for the year 2004 to the OO members (No. 29, 30).

○ 7 pages 9, "205. 2005. " 2004. 2. 7 . . . . . . . . . 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . .. .. . .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. ..

○ 8 and 9 pages (1) shall be raised as follows:

(1) According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, it is reasonable to view the Plaintiff’s acquisition value of the instant land as the acquisition value of the instant land, barring any special circumstance, inasmuch as the sum of the money paid as the purchase price, including payment in kind, to BB, etc. from April 2004 to July 6, 2005, pursuant to the sales contract with BB, etc.

The Plaintiff asserts that the additional expenses incurred by BB shall be included in the acquisition value, such as interest on the collateral loan, administrative fine, tax, etc. on May 31, 2004, the total amount of KRW 7,500,000 paid to BB, etc., KRW 00 on August 23, 2004, KRW 00 on September 18, 2004, KRW 00, KRW 000 on September 18, 2004, KRW 000 on October 18, 2004, KRW 00 on October 22, 2004, KRW 00 on the collateral loan, KRW 00 on August 22, 2008. However, to be deducted as necessary expenses for capital gains, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the above amount claimed by the Plaintiff falls under the necessary expenses that were paid. In particular, in light of the proviso to Article 163(1)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, it is difficult to recognize the remainder of necessary expenses.

Furthermore, the acquisition tax, registration tax, fees for certified judicial scrivener, and the amount of bonds discounted by the Plaintiff (i.e., KRW 00 + KRW 00 + KRW 00 + KRW 00) is the cost required for the land of this case, not the land of this case, which is not the land of this case, which has not been resold (No. 3, No. 34, and No. 35). As such, it cannot be deemed necessary expenses for the land of this case, and as seen thereafter, it shall be deemed necessary expenses for the land of this case No. 2.

○ 12 pages 12 through 18 are as follows:

In addition, since the acquisition value of the instant land No. 1 is an OO won (OOwon x less than KRW 1/3, but less than KRW 1/3, and hereinafter the same shall apply), when calculating the amount of income tax to be paid following the transfer of the instant land, it is an OO won (including additional taxes) as stated in the amount of due transfer income tax for the year 2004. Ultimately, the imposition of the capital gains tax for the Plaintiff on May 1, 201, imposed by the Defendant on the Plaintiff on May 1, 201, is legitimate within the scope of a legitimate tax amount.

○ 13 pages 13 and less than 2 pages are as follows:

According to the above facts, the transfer value of the land No. 2 of this case is an OO won, and the acquisition value is divided into 16-3 of the same region and is ultimately excluded from the land No. 2 of this case, it is reasonable to deem that it is an OO won (=OO + (OO+O)/OOO in the absence of special circumstances.

Accordingly, when calculating the amount of income tax to be paid by the transfer of the land of this case after deducting the necessary expenses of the Plaintiff, such as the acquisition tax, registration tax, certified judicial scrivener's expenses, and the discounted amount of bonds (i.e., the amount of KRW 00 + KRW 00 + KRW 000) with respect to the land of this case, the amount of income tax to be paid by the transfer of the land of this case is as listed in the attached Table 2010. Ultimately, the imposition disposition of KRW 00 (including additional tax) of the transfer income tax for the Plaintiff on May 1, 2011 is lawful within the scope of a legitimate tax amount.

2. Conclusion

Each disposition of imposition of transfer income tax of this case is legitimate, and thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit.

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance, which differs from this conclusion, shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed. On the other hand, the part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance is justified