Seoul Administrative Court-2015-Gu Partnership-62095 (2016.04)

Whether the acquisition price of the land of this case is reasonable by the plaintiff

Although the first contract of this case states in detail that the total purchase price and payment method of the land prior to the division of this case can be accepted, the possibility that the second contract of this case is arbitrarily prepared by the intervenor or prepared by mutual agreement between the two parties cannot be ruled out, as alleged by the plaintiff.

Article 104 of the Income Tax Act

The Seoul Administrative Court 2015Guhap62095 revocation of revocation of a capital gains tax revision

Until two months after the date of the first contract, the principle of this secured obligation

The sum of the gold 358,691,878 Won (total 468,691,878 Won) is not consistent with the defendant and the intervenor

The argument is difficult to accept.

○ From the 7th judgment of the first instance court to the following third execution:

such a manner as high-speed

The first contract of this case is 70,000,000 won in intermediate payment and 40,000,000 won in part payment to the intervenor,

90,000,000 won which shall be paid in cash out of the balance shall be actually paid and the remainder shall be:

The plaintiff is paid in the name of the intervenor after succeeding to the secured obligation of the right to collateral security.

A large amount of construction cost is likely to exist separately, and as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s subscription.

590,000,000 won in total for the acquisition of the land before the division of this case, regardless of whether it is a purchase price (tin)

The receipt for the balance of KRW 90,000,000 is stated as the amount actually received by the principal.

The amount includes 80,000,000 won. The defendant and the intervenor above 80,000,000 won shall not be the construction cost.

2.3) It is alleged that the payment was made, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, it is deemed that the purchase price of KRW 600 million under the contract of this case includes the purchase price of KRW 100 million.

It is difficult to do so.

○ On the seventh decision of the first instance court, the following shall be added to:

6. The Plaintiff’s acquisition price of the land before the instant partition as at the time the transfer income tax was reported is KRW 440,000,000.

Under the premise that the acquisition value of the land of this case is reported, civil construction costs of the part of the land of this case

75,262,71 won was deducted as necessary expenses, and thereafter, the civil engineering works of the part of the instant land was additionally conducted.

A request for correction that considers KRW 131,334,086 as necessary expenses and requests the above request for correction;

To file a petition for trial with the Tax Tribunal after being subject to the disposition of this case rejecting it;

Only the plaintiff asserted that the acquisition value of the land before the division of this case was 600,000,000 won.

on the basis of the contract No. 2 of this case, the law regarding the acquisition of the land before the subdivision of this case

Inasmuch as the rate relationship was organized, and the civil construction cost was intended to be deducted as the necessary expense, so that it was intended to do so;

When reporting capital gains tax, the acquisition of land before the division of this case does not cause any new problem.

There is a possibility that the acquisition value reported at the time was entered.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

ㅁㅁㅁ

OO Head of the tax office

2016.07.04

2017.017

2017.02.07

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs incurred by the intervention in the appeal are assessed against the Intervenor, and the remainder are assessed against the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s refusal to rectify the transfer income tax for the year 2013 on the Plaintiff 00.00.00

The part exceeding 000 won shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition or dismissal of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it shall accept it in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

○ On No. 6 of the judgment of the first instance court, the third letter "as well as No. 13" should be added after "the facts of recognition".

○ On No. 6 of the judgment of the first instance court, the statement No. 16 of the first instance court stated "No. 16 of the evidence No. 16" as "No. 16 of the evidence No. 28 of the first instance court, part of the witness No. 000 of the first instance court,"

○ 6th of the judgment of the first instance court, the 5th below was delivered, and the 4th below was delivered, as follows. The intervenor transferred KRW 10,000,000 to 00 immediately after the Plaintiff received the down payment of KRW 30,000,000 from the Plaintiff, and the intervenor did not take any measures against the above KRW 90,000 as the intervenor’s agent’s agent’s agent’s agent’s agent’s receipt of KRW 90,000,000, and the receipt was prepared and issued. However, the above KRW 90,000,000 is highly likely to have been received in relation to the acquisition of the land prior to the division.

○ From Nos. 7 to 13 of the first instance judgment is as follows.

④ The Defendant and the Intervenor asserted that the instant contract was rescinded because the Plaintiff did not pay any balance under the instant contract and concluded a new contract under the instant contract. However, as seen earlier, the content certification that the Intervenor sent to the Plaintiff even though the Plaintiff paid the agreed date, stated that the intermediate payment of KRW 40,000,000 under the instant contract was not paid on the fixed date for the instant real estate sales contract, and that the instant contract was not paid on the fixed date for the instant real estate sales contract. In addition, there is no content about the return or settlement of the price already paid under the instant contract, and 440,000,000,000 (excluding the amount paid to the Intervenor) and the principal of the loan of KRW 320,000 (total amount of KRW 430,000) and the amount of the loan of KRW 430,000 and KRW 600,000,000 for the Plaintiff’s loan of KRW 320,000.