Seoul Administrative Court-2015-Gu Group-56802 ( November 30, 2016)

Cho Jae-2015-west-783 (2015.06)

Since civil engineering works, etc. cannot be deemed to have been actually conducted and on-site verification, it is a relevant bill in a tax investigation that does not constitute double tax investigation.

The Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have actually performed civil engineering works, etc. because it is unclear whether the Plaintiff paid the construction cost, and the question to a third party, etc. at the site of civil engineering works is confirmed. As such, it is the relevant tax investigation and it does not constitute double tax investigation.

2016Nu81262 (Revocation of Disposition of Imposing Transfer Income Tax)

The United States of America

BB Director of the Tax Office

March 28, 2017

April 11, 2017

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal, including the costs of supplementary participation, are borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 270,110,320 against the plaintiff on September 23, 2014 by the defendant shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's explanation on this case is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, this court's explanation is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be removed or added;

○ Had the first instance court’s decision in the first instance court amounting to KRW 142,00,000,000 under the second instance judgment amounting to KRW 5.0

○ The following is added to the 6th sentence of the first instance court's second sentence.

[The Plaintiff deposited KRW 153,00,000 from his own account on August 13, 2004. However, as seen below, it is difficult to conclude that the said money was disbursed for the repayment of the construction price of Dmeralian because the Plaintiff could have received money from other transactional relations with the DamageCC, etc., as seen above, and it is difficult to conclude that the said money was disbursed only to pay the construction price of Dmeralian.) The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff had paid construction work at a level of 2 meters on the first land at a level of 156,00,000,000 for the construction cost of filling work, installing a stable, fence, etc. at a level of 156,00,000 won on the first contract, which is the completion date of the construction work under the first contract. Compared with the air carrier before and after December 30, 2003, it is difficult to find any change in the shape of land or the installation of a plastic house on the ground.

○ The first instance court’s first instance court’s 6th 'EFland’ (hereinafter referred to as “Eland”) 'Eland.’

○ On the 6th judgment of the first instance court, evidence Nos. 22, Eul No. 5, 6, 11, 15, 16, 17, and 20 of the first instance court's No. 4 "Evidence No. 22, 25, 28, Eul-3 through 8, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 20, 25 of the first instance court's No. 4 "(including branch numbers)"

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the plaintiff 2 was not entitled to the above 20-party 2's land transaction permission on December 20, 2006, and the 20-party 2's land transaction permission on the above land and the 20-party 2's land transaction permission on December 26, 2006 and the 20-party 2's land transaction permission on December 27, 2016, the plaintiff acquired the ownership of the 20-party 2's land and the 20-party 2's land transaction permission on December 1, 2006. The plaintiff's land transaction permission on the 20-party 2's land transaction permission on the above 20-party 2's land transaction permission on the 20-party 2's land transaction permission on the 20-party 2's land transaction permission on the 20-party 2's land, it is difficult to find out the possibility of the 200-party 2's.

○ In the 8th sentence of the first instance court, the following shall be added to:

Where a tax official’s investigation affects the taxpayer’s freedom of business by having the taxpayer answer questions and undergo an inspection, regardless of the name of the procedure, such investigation shall be deemed to fall under “tax investigation.” However, where it is deemed that all investigation conducted by the tax authority for the collection of taxation data or for the verification of accuracy of the details of the report constitutes a tax investigation prohibited by re-audit, the tax authority should always commence a regular tax investigation only in a case where the mere factual verification alone is sufficient, and the taxpayer, etc. must not be deemed as an “tax investigation” inasmuch as the taxpayer, etc. has no duty to answer or accept, and all the investigation conducted without any possibility of infringing the taxpayer’s freedom of business or being abused by the right to investigate (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Du8360, Mar. 16, 2017).

○ No. 12, 13, and 14 of the first instance judgment below No. 8, No. 12, 13, and 2 of the third instance judgment

of 6, 12, 13, 14

○ “The fact of the first instance judgment No. 9” added the following contents to the following. “The public officials belonging to the National Tax Service confirm the sales of Daehan and the airline and land compensation data on each land of this case.”

○ “No. 9 No. 4 of the first instance judgment........... .......... ......... ..................................)

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.