logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016. 10. 18. 선고 2016누49961 판결
검인계약서상의 양도가액을 실지거래가액으로 인정할 수 없음[국패]
Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit

Seoul Administrative Court-2013-Gu Group-1027 (No. 30, 2016)

Title

The transfer value in the stamp contract shall not be recognized as the actual transaction value.

Summary

(The same as the judgment of the first instance court) The transfer value under the approval agreement of the sales contract cannot be recognized as the actual transaction value, and the reported transfer value is recognized as the actual transaction value in light of the statement by the real estate broker, the details of payment of the purchase price, and the Plaintiff

Cases

2016Nu4961 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

Plaintiff, Appellant

*****

Defendant, appellant and appellant

* Head of tax office et al.

Judgment of the first instance court

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2013Gudan11027 decided May 30, 2016

Conclusion of Pleadings

September 6, 2016

Imposition of Judgment

October 18, 2016

Text

1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1. Purport of claim

Defendant** The director of the tax office’s imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 204,059,480 on October 1, 2012 **** of the tax office’s imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 204,059,480 on October 1, 2008 and Defendant* of the tax office’s imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 128,624,970 on Plaintiff** of the tax office’s imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 128,624,

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows, except where “only evidence submitted by the Defendant” No. 9-14 of the first instance judgment No. 9, No. 13-14 of the first instance court’s ruling is “only evidence submitted by the Defendant”, and the reasoning for the first instance judgment is the same as that of the second instance judgment, and thus, the same shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is justified, and the appeal by the defendants is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit.

arrow