Seoul High Court 2012Nu3608 ( November 15, 2012)

Early High Court Decision 2010Du4030 ( October 21, 2011)

After the successful bid of a building, the former owner pays the management expenses in arrears and falls under necessary expenses.

The liability for the payment of the delinquent management expenses for common areas to be borne by the former owner due to the successful bid of a building is legally succeeded, and there is no possibility of being repaid from the former owner, and it is inevitable to pay the delinquent management expenses to avoid the measures such as power failure and water, etc., which is added to the purchase price,

2012du28285 Revocation of disposition of imposing capital gains tax

IsaA

the director of the tax office of Western

Seoul High Court Decision 2012Nu3608 Decided November 15, 2012

April 26, 2013

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 97 (1) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9897 of Dec. 31, 2009) provides that "on-the-spot transaction price required for the acquisition of assets under each subparagraph of Article 94 (1)" as one of the necessary expenses to be deducted from the transfer value in calculating transfer gains of a resident for the purpose of calculating transfer income tax shall be determined. Furthermore, Article 163 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22034 of Feb. 18, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that "on-the-counter transaction price required for the acquisition of assets under each subparagraph of Article 97 (1) 1 (a) of the Act" refers to the sum of the following amounts, and Article 97 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree provides that "the value corresponding to the cost for acquisition calculated by applying mutatis mutandis the provisions of Article 89 (1) 1.

2. After finding the facts as stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the part of the instant disposition, which was not deducted from the transfer value, is unlawful on the ground that the Plaintiff had legally succeeded to the obligation to pay the delinquent management fee for the section for common use by the owner B before reducing the price of the instant building due to the successful bid, and that the Plaintiff paid 00 won for the delinquent management fee for the section for common use in this case for the instant building in order to avoid measures such as power failure to receive reimbursement even if the Plaintiff exercised the right to reimbursement against the owner B. In addition, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the necessary expenses to be deducted from the transfer value as alleged in the grounds of appeal. In light of the contents of the aforementioned legal provisions and relevant legal principles, the lower court’s determination is just, and it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the necessary expenses to be deducted from the transfer value.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.