logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.08.21 2014구단766
양도소득세부과처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 15, 2002, the Plaintiff’s father-B received each registration of ownership transfer with respect to D prior to D,34 square meters (hereinafter “one parcel of land”) and E, 760 square meters (hereinafter “second parcel of land”) from C on September 3, 2002, and subsequently transferred the second parcel of land to F on March 26, 2002, on May 31, 2003, when filing a report of transfer income tax, the acquisition value of the second parcel of land was KRW 138,00,000, the total amount of KRW 151,000,000, and KRW 125,000,000, KRW 200, KRW 300,000, KRW 300,005, and KRW 125,000, KRW 300,005, KRW 3005,005.

B. Accordingly, following the on-site investigation, the Defendant: (a) considered the transfer value of the land in the first place as KRW 384,631,00 for the land; (b) KRW 30,000 for the land in the second place; (c) KRW 414,631,00 for the land in the aggregate; and (d) KRW 297,00,000 for the land in the first and second terms; (b) imposed and notified KRW 9,46,230 for the capital gains tax of KRW 202 for the land in the first and second terms; (c) determined that the Plaintiff acquired the land in the name of the Plaintiff and subsequently transferred the land in the second place; and (d) revoked the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax for B on February 5, 2013; and (d) imposed and notified the Plaintiff of the disposition in the instant case.

C. The Plaintiff filed a request for adjudication with the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on February 13, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff did not have any title trust with B, and the Plaintiff actually transferred the instant land Nos. 1 and 2 to B after having actually acquired and transferred the instant land. 2) Even if the Plaintiff acquired and transferred the instant land to father B, it constitutes a case where the Plaintiff did not file a tax base return, and thus, the exclusion period of imposition is deemed to be up to May 31, 2010, which is seven years, and thus, the instant disposition is null and void by imposing an exclusion period.

3. The plaintiff's household affairs to B.

arrow