Seoul Administrative Court-2017-Gu 6259 ( October 01, 2019)

Capital expenditure means only the cost that increases the objective value of assets to the extent that it may affect the determination of the value of real estate.

Capital expenditure means only expenses that increase the objective value of assets to the extent that it can affect the determination of the value of real estate because it is related to the occurrence of capital gains.

Article 97 (Calculation of Necessary Expenses for Transfer Income)

2019Nu36379 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

Plaintiff, Appellant and Appellant

Gyeong Kim

Defendant, Appellants and Appellants

■■■세무서장

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2017Guhap62259 decided February 1, 2019

May 30, 2019

June 20, 2019

1. In accordance with the amendment of the purport of the claim by this court, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the judgment of the first instance shall be amended as follows:

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Of the total litigation costs, 90% is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant issued a disposition of imposition of KRW 350,249,942, and additional tax of KRW 4,841,425, which was imposed on the Plaintiff on November 7, 2016, respectively, and the disposition of imposition of KRW 52,117,191, which was imposed on the Plaintiff on May 3, 2019, respectively (i.e., imposition of KRW 52,117,191, which was imposed on the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff on May 3, 2019 (i.e., imposition of KRW 52,117,191, which was imposed on the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff through the reduction and increase in capital gains pursuant to the purport of the judgment of the first instance court,

2. Purport of appeal

A. Plaintiff: The part of the judgment of the first instance against the Plaintiff falling under the following is revoked. The part of the disposition imposing capital gains tax of KRW 468,051,920 (including additional tax) for the Plaintiff on November 7, 2016, which was imposed by the Defendant on the Plaintiff on November 7, 2016, which was revoked in KRW 60,843,352.

B. Defendant: The part against the Defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim corresponding to that part is dismissed.

1. Circumstances of the disposition and details thereof;

This Court's explanation is identical to the corresponding column of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition of "25,26" under the following, "4, 3, and 16," "4, and "25, 26," under Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, this Court's explanation is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420

F. In accordance with the purport of the judgment of the first instance on the instant disposition, the Defendant issued a corrective disposition to reduce the amount of the principal income tax for the year 2012 to KRW 350,249,942, the amount of the principal income tax for the year 2012; KRW 5,171,800; and KRW 22,311,058, the amount of the additional tax for the unfaithful payment; on May 3, 2019, the amount of the additional tax for the erroneous payment was reduced to KRW 4,841,425; and on May 3, 2019, the amount of the additional tax for the erroneous payment was reduced to KRW 52,117,191; the amount of the additional tax for the erroneous payment was increased to KRW 52,50,249,942; the additional tax for the year 2012; and the remaining amount of the imposition for the capital gains tax for the year 2015.25.1.

3. Whether the disposition following the correction of this case is legitimate

The court's explanation on this part is identical to the entry of 7-12 pages of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the part of 12 pages of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(d) Scope of due tax amount and cancellation.

As seen earlier, the reasonable amount of tax on the premise that the capital expenditure deemed necessary expenses is KRW 134,940,909 is KRW 407,208,568, and the specific basis for calculation is as stated in [Attachment 3]. Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court revoked the portion exceeding KRW 407,208,568, out of the instant disposition.

As seen earlier, the Defendant issued a disposition of reduction and increase in accordance with the purport of the judgment of the court of first instance, and accordingly, the disposition following the correction of the instant case is lawful.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be modified in accordance with the plaintiff's amendment of the purport of the claim in the trial.