Seoul High Court 2012Nu32170 (Law No. 27, 2013.09)

Examination Donation 2011-0018 (2011.09.09)

Even if it was not imposed for three years, it cannot be deemed that the public opinion statement was given that the tax disposition would not be imposed.

In order to apply the principle of the protection of trust to the acts of administrative agencies, the administrative agencies should name the public opinion that is the subject of trust to individuals, and there should be no reason for the administrative agencies to believe that the name of the opinion of the administrative agencies is legitimate and trust.

Income Tax Act

2013Du24532 Revocation of revocation of imposition of capital gains tax

IsaA

*The Director of the Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 2013Nu180 decided October 16, 2013

March 13, 2014

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

The lower court, citing the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, found the facts as indicated in its reasoning. Then, based on the following: (i) This case’s ownership registration was filed against the BB Housing Association on the ground of the invalidation of the registration of transfer of ownership of the instant real estate under a sales contract concluded between the third party and the BB District Housing Association (hereinafter “1B Housing Association1”), and (ii) this case’s ownership was withdrawn upon agreement with the BB Housing Association on March 3, 2008; (iii) this case’s real estate was entered into in the BB Housing Association with the BB Housing Association with the third party; and (iv) this case’s registration of transfer of ownership should be deemed valid as invalid registration; and (iii) this case’s real estate should be deemed to have been entered into between the BB Housing Association and the said 3B Housing Association with the said Association and the said 3B Housing Association, and thus, it should be deemed that the said agreement should be entered into between the BB Housing Association and the said 30A.

Examining the record in light of the relevant legal principles, the above determination by the court below is acceptable, and there is no misapprehension of the legal principles as to the utility of registration invalidation or omission of necessary judgment at the same time.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the court below is justified in holding that even if the National Tax Service responded to the principles of general interpretation of the law regarding the issue of quality through the Internet homepage of thisA, or thisA reported and paid the transfer income tax of this case as the standard market price for three years, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant did not impose any taxation as the actual transaction price on the transfer of the real estate of this case. In addition, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the protection of trust.

3. Regarding ground of appeal No. 3

In light of the records, the court below's rejection of the assertion that thisA paid 420 million won and 100 million won to thisCC in relation to the transfer of the instant real estate by reason of its stated reasoning is just and acceptable, and there is no error in violation of the rules of logic and experience, thereby exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence.

In addition, as long as the acquisition value of the instant movable property is calculated based on the conversion value, the lower court’s determination that only the amount calculated by multiplying the officially assessed individual land price of the instant movable property by 3/100 may be recognized as necessary expenses is nothing more than the determination of the family register. Therefore, insofar as it is not recognized that necessary expenses claimed by the Plaintiff are not spent as mentioned above, the lower court’s determination of the family register additionally cannot affect the conclusion of the judgment, and thus, the assertion on such

4. Conclusion

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