Daegu District Court-2013-Gu Partnership-170 (No. 31, 2013)

Cho Jae-2012-Gu-3235 ( October 29, 2012)

Where a person does not acquire exchange marginal profits from the repayment of borrowed money at the time of the transfer of assets overseas acquired with borrowed money, he/she shall exclude exchange marginal profits from gains on transfer.

(As in the judgment of the court of first instance) It is unlawful to calculate capital gains including transfer marginal profits from the loan portion, although the transferor did not acquire the exchange marginal profits from the loan portion, by repaying the loan with the transfer proceeds at the time of the transfer of assets acquired through the local source loan with its own funds and the local source loan loan loan loan.

The scope of transfer income under Article 118-2 of the Income Tax Act

The transfer value under Article 118-3 of the Income Tax Act

2013Nu104 Revocation of disposition of imposing capital gains tax

○○

○ Head of tax office

Daegu District Court Decision 2013Guhap170 Decided May 31, 2013

September 13, 2013

September 27, 2013

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3. To rectify " May 13, 2011" in paragraph (1) of the order of the court of first instance to " January 4, 2012";

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 109,404,060 (including additional tax) for the Plaintiff on January 4, 2012 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act are cited, except where "$ 756,790.28" in Part 2, 11 of the judgment of the court of first instance is "$ 756,790.78."

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. Since it is obvious that " May 13, 201" in paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court of first instance is a clerical error in the text of " January 4, 2012," it is so decided as per Disposition.