Seoul Administrative Court 2013Gudan24931 ( March 23, 2014)

Review Transfer 2013-0134 (Law No. 16, 2013)

The disposition by adding up the amount of compensation not known as agricultural products to the transfer value is legitimate.

If it is impossible to prove the agricultural products compensation received separately from the real estate purchase price, the disposition imposed on the sum of the transfer value is legitimate.

Article 96 of the Income Tax Act

2014Nu60353 Revocation of disposition of imposing capital gains tax

KimA

Head of Central Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2013Gudan24931 decided July 23, 2014

April 9, 2015

May 7, 2015

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 imposition of capital gains tax OOO(including additional tax) imposed on the Plaintiff on April 1, 2013 by the Defendant shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as follows, and it is identical to the reasoning of the first instance court's judgment except for the addition of some contents and the dismissal of some contents. Thus, it is cited for this judgment in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of

Parts to be added

○ The following shall be added to the 5th judgment of the first instance court which does not coincide with ......."

In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff asserted that agricultural crops were jointly cultivated by the Plaintiff and KimB, and that long-term brain were cultivated by the Plaintiff alone. As so, if the Plaintiff cultivated long-term ginseng by himself, it is difficult to understand that the Plaintiff would receive land prices and farming compensation, etc. from the non-party company with the same content as KimB. As to the resettlement expenses under the sales contract of the building and the ground objects (No. 3-2) dated September 10, 2007, the Plaintiff was an OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO on June 17, 2004, and the Plaintiff was an OOOOOO on September 4, 2007, and the OOOOOOOOOOdong on July 11, 201, and it was difficult to recognize that the transfer of the land was to be paid to the non-party company within the distance of 4 OOOOOOO located within the vicinity at the time of the transfer of the land.

(2) The main part shall be the part

In addition, the part of the 5th judgment of the first instance court "O0,000 won that the plaintiff paid to ParkCC" is as follows.

In addition, the Plaintiff did not submit only the certificate of deposit of the KRW O0,000 paid to ParkCC, and did not disclose the specific basis for calculation, use, etc. of the amount, so it cannot be confirmed that only the above OO0 is related to brain planting, and even if the above OO0 is related to brain planting, only the above OO0,000 won is related to brain planting.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.