logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
red_flag_2
(영문) 대전지방법원 2012. 06. 27. 선고 2011구합1612 판결
매매과정에서 대행・보조 역할을 한 것으로 보이고 미등기 전매한 것으로 인정하기 어려움[국패]
Case Number of the previous trial

Cho Jae-chul2010 Before 3957 (Law No. 111, 2011)

Title

It is difficult to recognize that it has served as an agent or assistance in the process of sale and has not been resold.

Summary

In light of the fact that the sales contract is written as a buyer and the seal affixed is written as a pen of a licensed real estate agent, and the stamp image is different from the fact that it is used in other sales contracts, it is difficult to believe the entries of the sales contract in the sales contract and to introduce real estate during the sales process and to act as an agent or an assistant for the payment of price, etc.

Cases

2011Guhap1612 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

Plaintiff

XX

Defendant

Daejeon Head of the District Tax Office

Conclusion of Pleadings

May 23, 2012

Imposition of Judgment

June 27, 2012

Text

1. The Defendant’s imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 against the Plaintiff on September 1, 2010 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Purport of claim

The same shall apply to the order.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Daejeon District Court, Daejeon District Court, Daejeon District Court No. 22704, Apr. 21, 2004, received on April 21, 2004, issued an ownership transfer registration under the name of KimB with respect to the Daejeon-dong 000-00 large 161.3 square meters (hereinafter “instant real property”).

B. On March 25, 2004, the Defendant: (a) acquired the instant real estate from KimA to the Plaintiff on March 25, 2004; (b) deemed that the instant real estate was transferred to KimA on April 22, 2004 without registering the name of the Plaintiff; and (c) issued a disposition imposing capital gains tax of KRW 000 on the Plaintiff on September 1, 2010 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and sought revocation of the instant disposition to the Tax Tribunal on November 29, 201, but was dismissed on February 1, 2011.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul in the evidence of Nos. 1 to 3 (including the provisional number) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The Plaintiff introduced the instant real estate from thisCC to purchase the instant real estate by KimB, and did not resell the instant real estate, and the sales contract (Evidence A No. 4, hereinafter referred to as “the sales contract of this case”) in which KimB as the seller, the Plaintiff as the buyer, and the sales contract (Evidence A 4, hereinafter referred to as “the sales contract of this case”) in which the Plaintiff was the buyer was forged.

(2) Even if the Plaintiff sold the instant real estate without registration, the Plaintiff did not deduct expenses, such as real estate brokerage fees, and there was an error in the process of hearing only the Plaintiff’s husband’s statement before the instant disposition was rendered.

(3) Even if the Plaintiff sold the instant real estate without registration, the purchaser under the instant contract entered the Plaintiff and two others, so the Plaintiff only obtained gains from transfer equivalent to 1/3 shares of the instant real estate.

(4) The instant disposition on a different premise must be revoked in an unlawful manner.

B. Determination

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff appeared to have been aware of the fact that the Plaintiff’s 0G sales contract and the 40G sales contract were signed and sealed by the Plaintiff. However, the Plaintiff’s remaining 0G sales contract and the 0G sales contract were written as a witness of the Plaintiff’s 0G 2, and that the Plaintiff’s remaining 0G sales contract and the 4G 0G 20 were not consistent with the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff acquired the instant real estate as well as 2, and that the Plaintiff’s remaining 0G 20 and the 40G 4G 200 were written as a witness of the Plaintiff’s account, and that the Plaintiff’s remaining 0G 4G 200 and the 0G 4G 200 were written as a witness of the Plaintiff’s 4G 204.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow