logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2015.01.27 2014구단73
양도소득세부과처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 18, 2004, the Plaintiff purchased 1/2 equity shares from Nonparty D, E, and F, respectively, and newly constructed a commercial building (hereinafter “instant building”) on the ground, along with the husband Nonparty B of the Seo-gu Incheon City’s land (hereinafter “instant land”). On June 3, 201, the Plaintiff transferred the instant land and buildings to Nonparty G in the transfer value of KRW 3,500,000,000.

(hereinafter referred to as “transfer of this case”). B.

On August 29, 2011, the Plaintiff reported capital gains tax of KRW 21,750,00,00 (land 1,100,000,000, building 650,000,000), acquisition value of KRW 1,593,797,130 (land 922,020,000, building 671,777,130), and other necessary expenses (land 671,777,130, building), and KRW 20,623,675, tax base of KRW 102,824,795.

C. The Defendant notified the director of the Central Regional Tax Office of the result of tax investigation, and accepted only KRW 70,000,000 (including the corresponding portion of KRW 75,000 against the Plaintiff) from among the acquisition value of the entire land of this case, and subsequently corrected and notified the Plaintiff’s tax base of capital gains tax on the transfer of this case as KRW 19,324,795, and on June 1, 2013, that the Plaintiff should additionally pay KRW 50,91,710 (including the corresponding portion of KRW 10,624,558, KRW 6,592,592, and KRW 16161) from among the acquisition value of the entire land of this case.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

On November 5, 2013, the plaintiff appealed and filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2, 9, Eul evidence 1 and 3

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion (1) is that the plaintiff paid 1,80,000,000 won to D, E, and F with the husband B as stated in the sales contract. The remaining amount that was not discovered at the time of tax investigation is 150,000.

arrow