Gwangju District Court 201Guu4725 ( November 08, 2012)

early 2012 Mine3020 (Law No. 112.30, 2012)

Although there is a defect that has mistakenly recognized the transfer value, it does not constitute invalid because it cannot be objectively recognized as objectively apparent.

In light of the fact that there is a defect in recognizing the amount reported by the transferee of land as the actual transaction price and using it as the transfer price by the transferor, there is no data for payment of the purchase price, etc., but it is insufficient to recognize that there is a defect in recognizing the transfer price as a material breach

2012Nu1531 Revocation of disposition of imposing capital gains tax

AAA

Head of the North Mine District Tax Office

Gwangju District Court Decision 201Guhap4725 Decided November 8, 2012

June 13, 2013

July 11, 2013

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. Costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance court is estimated. The defendant confirmed that the imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 on June 3, 201 against the plaintiff on June 3, 201 is null and void.

1. Circumstances of dispositions;

This Court's explanation is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and it is also accepted by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether a disposition is null and void

A. It is insufficient to say that there is an illegal cause in the disposition in order to make the administrative disposition as a matter of course null and void, and it is objectively obvious that the defect is in violation of the important part of the law, and it is necessary to examine the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the law from a teleological perspective in order to determine whether the defect is increased and obvious (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Du14363, Jun. 30, 2006). In addition, in an administrative litigation seeking the invalidation of the administrative disposition, the plaintiff has the responsibility to assert and prove the reason why the administrative disposition is null and void (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Nu6030, Mar. 10, 1992; 2009Du3460, May 13, 2010).

B. After acquiring the ownership of the instant land on May 28, 2002, the Plaintiff did not dispute the fact that the instant land was transferred to the largestB on August 23, 2002, and even if it was intended within one year after acquiring the land mold, the Plaintiff should calculate the transfer income tax at the actual transaction price between the transferor and the transferee at the time of transfer pursuant to Articles 94(1)1 and 96(1)4 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7837, Dec. 3, 2005) by falling under the case where the Plaintiff intended both within one year after acquiring the land mold.

C. According to the statement in Eul evidence No. 8, the mostB transferred the land in this case at around 2008, and reported the acquisition value to the plaintiff at KRW 000,000, and the defendant ordered the plaintiff to submit explanatory materials or to pay revised reports, and then calculated, corrected, and notified the transfer income tax based on the acquisition value reported by the plaintiff, and the mostB made the disposition in this case. According to the evidence No. 1. 8, it can be recognized that the actual transaction price was 00, and the evidence No. 3 (the most BB sales contract) that seems to be contrary to the evidence to support the authenticity of the plaintiff's name, and it cannot be used as evidence, and the evidence No. 8 submitted to the plaintiff at the time of the sale price payment and similar land transaction, and it is obviously insufficient to recognize that the above part of the transfer price was 10,000,000,000,0000,000,000 won.

D. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant disposition is invalid is without merit.

3.In conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.