early 2012west 1972

The amount paid as damages to the transferee of the remodeling project shall be deducted as necessary expenses.

The amount equivalent to the disposal cost should be deducted as necessary expenses, because it was paid the amount equivalent to the disposal cost because it was not properly treated as the disposal cost because it was not done by transferring the real estate after being possessed without completing the registration of transfer of ownership, and it constitutes an unregistered pre-sale and remodeling construction.

2012 old-gu 4978 Disposition of Revocation of Capital Gains Tax Imposition

United StatesA

Head of Seodaemun Tax Office

February 6, 2013

February 20, 2013

1. The Defendant’s imposition disposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 for the year 2003 against the Plaintiff on February 1, 2010, exceeding KRW 000,000, shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 2/3 are assessed against the Plaintiff, and the remainder are assessed against the Defendant.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposing capital gains tax of KRW 000 (including additional tax) for the year 2003 against the Plaintiff on February 1, 2010 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 19, 2003, the Plaintiff acquired an OOO 00 large scale of 836 square meters and its ground buildings 2,423.7 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “the instant real estate by combining the land and buildings, etc.”) in 000 won and performed remodeling construction, and transferred 00 won to KimD on July 24, 2003.

B. On February 1, 2010, the Defendant decided and notified the Plaintiff of the transfer value of the instant real estate of KRW 000, and the acquisition value of the instant real estate of KRW 000, and necessary expenses of KRW 000, and the transfer income tax of KRW 000 for the year 2003 (hereinafter “the initial disposition”).

C. In the appeal procedure of the instant disposition, the Plaintiff additionally recognized KRW 000 as necessary expenses, and accordingly, the Defendant corrected the tax amount on December 8, 201 to KRW 000 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 4, and Eul evidence 6 to 23 (including each number), and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful for the following reasons.

(1) The assertion that the registration is not a pre-sale.

The plaintiff was delegated by KimE, the former owner of the real estate of this case, and prepared a sales contract for the real estate of this case to KimD, and therefore, the real estate of this case is not unregistered.

(2) Claim for transfer value

Even if the Plaintiff transferred the instant real estate to KimD as KRW 000, and the Plaintiff, in lieu of KRW 000 of the purchase price of the instant real estate from KimDD, as a substitute for the real estate owned by KimD (three parcels, such as OOOO 000 land in a public city in a public city), but the market price of the said substitute real estate is merely KRW 000, and the said substitute real estate is merely KRW 000,000, and the transfer price should be calculated with the transfer price.

(3) Claim on necessary expenses, etc.

The plaintiff should deduct the costs of remodeling construction for the real estate of this case from necessary expenses in calculating the amount of construction cost, etc. as follows:

① Construction cost of at least 000 won, which is not recognized in the pre-trial proceedings of the instant lawsuit

(2) Compensation, etc. for damages for KimD (waste disposal costs of 000 won + Litigation costs of 000

2)

(4) Claim to deduct unclaimed purchase price of KRW 000

The Plaintiff recovered only KRW 000,000 out of the purchase price of the instant real estate from KimD, and failed to recover the remainder of KRW 000,00, which must be deducted from gains on transfer.

(b) Fact of recognition;

(1) On March 19, 2003, the Plaintiff acquired the instant real estate from KimE in KRW 000, and performed remodeling work, and transferred the instant real estate to KimD on July 24, 2003 without registering it in the name of the Plaintiff.

(2) On December 4, 2003, the Plaintiff, instead of KRW 600 million out of the sales price of the instant real estate, transferred the said large real estate to KRW 000,000 as a substitute, when the Plaintiff received three parcels of land, such as OO00, in the official city owned by KimD, in lieu of KRW 300 million.

(3) The plaintiff was not paid KRW 100 million out of the purchase price of the real estate in this case from KimD, but the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against KimD (Cheongju District Court Decision 2004Gahap55408, 2006Na11690, 2007Da11690, Cheongju District Court Decision 2007Da55408, Nov. 1, 2004, hereinafter referred to as the "the judgment of this case") against the plaintiff.

(4) After that, the Plaintiff received a lawsuit related to the instant real estate (Seoul Western District Court Decision 2010Kahap15448 decided July 7, 2011; Seoul High Court Decision 2011Na62610 decided April 27, 2012; and on the ground that the Plaintiff did not lawfully dispose of the instant real estate while performing remodeling works for the instant real estate, “the Plaintiff was paid KRW 000 and its delay damages to KimD” (hereinafter referred to as “the instant second judgment”), and the Plaintiff was recognized to have spent KRW 00 on the removal, removal, and disposal costs of the wastes buried in the instant second judgment, and the removal, removal, and removal of the wastes, and covering or supplementing the space.

(5) Meanwhile, KimDD’s lawsuit against the Plaintiff was filed by the Cheongju District Court 201Kahap4909, and the conciliation was concluded between the Plaintiff and KimDD as of June 21, 2012, by adjusting the instant claim for the first judgment and the instant claim for the second judgment as of June 21, 2012, and finally paying KRW 00 to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of Recognition] The above evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 1. 5 through 7. 11. 13, Eul evidence Nos. 1. 1 through 5, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

(1) As to the assertion that an unregistered pre-sale is not a pre-sale

According to the above facts, the plaintiff acquired the real estate from KimE without registering the ownership in the name of the plaintiff, and owned it under the name of KimE, and conducted remodeling work, and thereafter transferred the real estate to KimD and sold the real estate unregistered. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit on different premise.

(2) On the assertion of transfer value

According to the above facts, the plaintiff received the real estate owned by KimD from KimD in lieu of 000 won out of the purchase price of the real estate in this case from KimD, and transferred it to a third party at a low price in 000 won, and the plaintiff transferred the large real estate at a low price, which should be deducted from the transfer price to the extent of the difference or deducted it from the necessary expenses, and therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

(3) As to the assertion of necessary expenses

(A) Construction cost portion

According to the above facts, with regard to the fact that the plaintiff has been recognized as necessary expenses in the pre-trial procedure of this case, and that the plaintiff has disbursed the construction expenses in addition to the amount recognized in the pre-trial procedure, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

(B) Part of damages

According to the above facts, the Plaintiff did not properly dispose of the instant real estate while remodeling, and paid 000 won corresponding to the cost of removal, removal, and disposal to KimD as compensation for damage, and the Plaintiff would have properly disposed of the wastes while remodeling the instant real estate. Therefore, it is reasonable to deduct the amount corresponding to the above amount from the necessary expense. Furthermore, it is difficult to view that the damages exceeding the above amount (including the litigation costs) constitute the necessary expense incurred while remodeling.

(C) Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remainder is without merit.

(4) As to the assertion of the unpaid sales amount

According to the above facts, the plaintiff arranged the claims for the judgment of this case 1 and the claims for the second judgment of this case between KimDD, and the remaining amount of 000 won was paid from KimD. Accordingly, according to this, the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have failed to recover 000 won as the purchase price of the real estate of this case, and the plaintiff's assertion on the premise different from this is without merit.

(d) Justifiable tax amount.

The legitimate amount of tax, such as the attached tax calculation sheet, is KRW 000.

E. Sub-committee

Therefore, the part exceeding 00 won in the disposition of this case is illegal, and the part of the machinery is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and others

The claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and it shall be decided as per Disposition.