Busan District Court-2017-Gu Partnership-24289 ( December 7, 2018)

The ground that the Plaintiff should deduct necessary expenses when reporting the transfer income tax of the instant real estate is insufficient to recognize only the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff.

Although the Plaintiff asserts that the necessary expenses should be deducted at the time of filing a report on the transfer income tax of the instant real estate, it cannot be recognized because there is a lack of evidence to recognize the disbursement details asserted by the Plaintiff as capital expenditure among

Article 97 (Calculation of Necessary Expenses for Transfer Income)

Busan High Court 2018Nu24346 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

AA

BB Director of the Tax Office

5. Judgment of the court of the previous trial

Busan District Court Decision 2017Guhap24289 Decided December 7, 2018

June 19, 2019

July 17, 2019

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 transfer income tax reverted to the Plaintiff in April 7, 2017 by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on April 7, 2017

The imposition of KRW 00,000,000 (including additional taxes) shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the dismissal or addition of part of the grounds for the judgment of the first instance as follows. Thus, this Court shall accept it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary Use]

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the 10th 14th 2th 'A' in the 7th 10th 'A' in the 7th 10th 'A' in the 7th 10th 'A' in the 14th '2th 14th 'A' in the 10th 'A' in the 10th 'A',

Since ○○○ Plaintiff was in the first instance trial and withdrawn the assertion of double taxation in the procedure of the instant disposition, 1) and 2-3 (1) and 2-2 (3) of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, 1) and 2-1 (2) (2) of the judgment of the first instance (3) as 1, 3) as 3-2, 3-4 of the 14th 14th 14th 5th 9th 3th 5th 5th 9th 3th 5th 5th 5th 5th 9th 4th 5th 5th 1st 5th 1st 1st 5th 5th 5th 5th 1st 5th 5th 5th 5th 6th 16th 7th 16th 5th 16th 2th 2th 5th 5th 2th 2th 1st 2th 5th 2th 1st

Article 97 (1) of the Income Tax Act prior to the amendment by Act No. 6292 of Dec. 29, 2000 provides for the acquisition value, facility cost, improvement cost, capital expenditure, and transfer cost of necessary expenses to be deducted from the transfer value when calculating gains from transfer. However, the installation cost and improvement cost were deleted from the necessary expenses item of the Income Tax Act amended by Act No. 6292 of Dec. 29, 2000, considering the fact that it is not easy to distinguish from the capital expenditure. As such, since the aforementioned income tax was deleted from the necessary expenses item of the Income Tax Act amended by Act No. 6292 of Dec. 29, 200, all of the expenses paid for the installation cost and improvement cost of transferred assets shall be deemed as capital expenditure and deducted from the transfer value. Each disbursement indicated in attached Table 2 of the judgment of the court below shall be deducted from the transfer value of the instant real estate.

Article 163 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17032, Dec. 29, 2000) provides that "the expenses for installation and improvement of facilities" under Article 97 of the Act means ① the expenses for the alteration of use of transferred assets, ② the expenses for the improvement of transferred assets, ③ the expenses for convenient use of transferred assets, ④ the expenses prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy, ④ the expenses corresponding to the above (i) the expenses prescribed in the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy. Article 163 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "the capital expenses" means the capital expenses calculated by applying mutatis mutandis Article 67 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (i) the expenses for the alteration of use of transferred assets, or those for the alteration of the use of transferred assets, and (ii) the expenses for the alteration of the use of transferred assets or those for the alteration of the use of transferred assets are not actually recognized.

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.