logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2012. 10. 17. 선고 2012누13384 판결
일괄양도한 토지의 양도가액 구분이 불분명한 것으로 보아 기준시가로 안분한 것은 적법함[국승]
Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit

Incheon District Court 201Guu4873 (Law No. 19, 2012)

Title

It is legitimate that the transfer value of the land transferred en bloc is unclear and divided into the standard market price.

Summary

(1) In light of the circumstances of sale and purchase as well as the method of payment, etc., it is legitimate to calculate the transfer value by parcel in accordance with the standard market price on the ground that the distinction between the transfer value of each land is unclear and the transfer value of each land is calculated in proportion to the standard market price.

Cases

2012Nu1384 Revocation of disposition of imposing capital gains tax

Plaintiff and appellant

XX Kim

Defendant, Appellant

Deputy Director of the Tax Office

Judgment of the first instance court

Incheon District Court Decision 201Guhap4873 Decided April 19, 2012

Conclusion of Pleadings

September 19, 2012

Imposition of Judgment

October 17, 2012

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 on October 1, 2010 against the plaintiff on October 1, 201 shall be revoked.

Reasons

The reasoning of this court's judgment is the same as that of the court of first instance, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the

The Plaintiff asserts that each of the instant lands is divided by parcel rather than by setting the price in a lump sum but by parcel. However, as seen earlier, it is recognized that each of the instant lands was transferred in a lump sum at KRW 000, and that the entry of No. 4 as shown in the Plaintiff’s assertion is not trustable in light of the entries in No. 7, 8, and No. 9-1 and No. 2. The Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

arrow