Seoul Administrative Court-2013-Gu Group-8540 ( November 22, 2013)

Cho High-2012-Seoul Government-4789 (2013.08)

Confirmation of Transfer Articles

In the sales contract, only the land was stated as a subject matter of sale, and there is no reference to the building, and even in the calculation of the purchase price, the building cannot be deemed a subject matter of transfer if the building and land are separately calculated or assessed

Article 94 (Scope of Transfer Income)

2013Nu5365 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

- Appellants

AA

BB Director of the Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2013Gudan8540 decided November 22, 2013

June 17, 2014

July 1, 2014

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 is revoked, and the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 37,178,990 (including additional tax of KRW 5,780,295) that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on August 1, 2012 is revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's explanation on this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of the first instance except for the dismissal under Paragraph 3 of the judgment of the court of the first instance as follows. Thus, the court's explanation on this case is accepted in accordance with Article 8 Paragraph 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Destroyed parts (3. Whether the disposition is lawful or not);

The Plaintiff’s assertion also assumes that the instant building was included in the subject matter of the instant sales contract with the instant land. However, according to the witnessCC’s testimony, the Plaintiff’s purchase and sale contract of each of the instant buildings included KRW 10 million in intermediate payment or KRW 52,500,000,000,000, which was not entered into on May 17, 201, and the Plaintiff’s purchase and sale contract of each of the instant buildings was not entered into with each of the following items: (a) the Plaintiff’s purchase and sale contract of the instant building was not entered into with each of the instant items of the instant building; and (b) the Plaintiff’s purchase and sale contract was not entered into with each of the instant items of the instant building; and (c) the Plaintiff’s purchase and sale contract was not entered into with each of the items of the instant building’s purchase and sale contract, and the Plaintiff’s purchase and sale contract was not entered into with each of the items of the instant building’s purchase and sale contract, but with each of the instant items of the sales contract.

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case based on the premise that the building of this case is not the object of the contract of this case is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance with the same conclusion is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.