Suwon District Court 208Gudan2273 ( December 05, 2008)

The legitimacy of the assertion that the premium for the lessee should be included in the balance and deducted;

It is argued that the total amount of the rental deposit included in the acquisition value is not clear, and that the cash held the down payment and the intermediate payment is paid only, which is close to 300 million won, and that the statement made by the transaction party on the transaction details is inconsistent with each other, and that the denial is legitimate.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The part concerning the imposition of additional dues and aggravated additional dues among the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's lawsuit on this part shall be dismissed;

2. The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

2. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. On August 24, 2007, the defendant cancels the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 181,249,040, additional dues of KRW 5,437,470, increased additional dues of KRW 2,174,980, which is paid by the plaintiff to the plaintiff.

1. Acceptance of a judgment of the court of first instance;

The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning the instant case is as follows, and thus, the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the part concerning the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, this is cited in accordance with Article 8(2)

2. A section to be removed or added;

(a) Class 7 "181,249,041 Won 181,249,040,040";

(b)p. 1 on the 6th page. The following shall be added:

First, with respect to additional dues and increased additional dues, if national taxes are not paid by the due date, additional dues and increased additional dues under Articles 21 and 22 of the National Tax Collection Act are a kind of incidental taxes imposed in a arbitrary sense, and if national taxes are not paid by the due date without the due date for payment, additional dues and increased additional dues shall naturally become final and conclusive pursuant to the above provisions of the Act. However, in order to commence the collection procedure, it is possible to urge the payment of additional dues by the demand notice, and if the demand for the payment of additional dues is unreasonable or defective in the procedure, it is only possible to object to a revocation lawsuit against the collection disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 90Nu168 delivered on May 8, 1990). According to the above evidence, the defendant is merely 181,249,040 won for transfer income tax and the above additional dues are to be paid by the due date for payment, and there is no additional additional dues or increased additional dues to be paid by the plaintiff. Thus, the above additional dues or increased additional dues are not established.

C. In addition to the first head of Chapter 6, "in respect of the portion of capital gains tax" as follows:

라. 제6면 제2행의 '증인 민☄☄'을 '제1심 증인 민☄☄'으로 고치고, 같은 면 제3행 의 '진술' 다음에 '및 당심 증인 지★★의 진술'을 추가함

(e)in addition to the following judgments:

원고는,박♈♈로부터이전받지못한교환부동산인화성시우정면▼▼리831-20 공장용지의가액인3억5,000만원을이사건부동산의양도가액12억원에서공제해야한다고도주장하나,갑제6호증,을제2,3호증의각기재를종합하면원고는당초박♈♈와이사건부동산의매매대금을13억2,500만원으로정하고그중일부로위공장용지를이전받기로하였으나,위공장용지의이전이곤란하게되자매매대금을12 억원으로수정하는계약을체결한사실이인정되므로위주장은이유없다

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance on the disposition of imposing additional dues and aggravated additional dues is unfair, and thus the plaintiff's appeal as to this part is dismissed. Since the remaining part is legitimate, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.