Incheon District Court 201Guhap1188 (2011.08)

Cho High Court Decision 2008No3428 (Law No. 15, 2010)

It is recognized that the purchase of the land and the unregistered resale is recognized.

In full view of the facts stated in the sales contract as a purchaser under the sales contract, and the fact that the purchase of the land at the time of a tax investigation and the purchase of unregistered land and the purchase of gains from resale are affixed and sealed on the end of the same content, it can be recognized that the purchase of the land is unregistered.

2011Nu33718 Revocation of disposition of imposing capital gains tax

KimA

Deputy Director of the Tax Office

Incheon District Court Decision 2011Guhap1188 Decided September 8, 2011

March 21, 2012

April 25, 2012

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 on June 2, 2008 against the plaintiff on June 2, 2008 shall be revoked.

1. cite the judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as follows: (a) the judgment of the first instance court is dismissed as follows; and (b) the next paragraph does not add the judgment on the Plaintiff's assertion to the grounds of the first instance court's judgment; and (c) therefore, the part is presented as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of

- - The following:

02쪽 8째 줄: 'CC옥' φ 'CC욱'

1. The term "the third day below: June 9, 2008" and " June 2, 2008."

03 - the first 3 - the fourth (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition in this case") is deleted, and the second 9th "Determination and notification was made" (hereinafter referred to as the "the disposition in this case") was made and notified.

"No. 12" is added to the 10th [based basis for recognition] of the 03th 10th : 05th 9th : 'CC only'.

06The fourth: ' must be interpreted', ' should be interpreted.'

2. The plaintiff's assertion and its determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that, even if the Plaintiff stated in the instant sales contract that the Plaintiff alone purchased the instant land, it is true that newF, etc. sold the instant land from the village association after purchasing the instant land, and it is not unregistered, but that the Plaintiff did not obtain any gains from resale, and that the instant disposition made on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Determination

However, even if the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff in this court (including each statement of evidence Nos. 16 through 27 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and each statement of evidence Nos. 16 through 27, and testimony of witnesses at this court, Kim E-E), it is insufficient to reverse the judgment of the first instance court. Rather, considering the following circumstances acknowledged by adding the whole arguments to the statements of Nos. 1, 5, B through 4, 7, 10 through 16, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Plaintiff acquired the land of this case from the Village Association after purchasing the land of this case to newF, etc., and obtained proceeds from resale. The above argument by the Plaintiff cannot be accepted. The disposition of this case is legitimate.

1) Unless there exist special circumstances, a contract, which is a disposal document, must be acknowledged as having the existence and content of the declaration of intention. Meanwhile, Article 2 of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Real Estate imposes an obligation to apply for the registration of ownership transfer on a real estate buyer. However, the Plaintiff appears to have well known the content of such statutes in the instant sales contract, which is a disposal document, as it is stated in the sales contract of this case as the buyer, and the Plaintiff, who prepared the sales contract of this case, knew that the Plaintiff would have been liable for the registration of ownership transfer under the aforesaid special measures, did not actually purchase the land of this case on account of the fact that the Plaintiff, who prepared the sales contract of this case, did not purchase the land of this case on the ground

2) From March 3, 2008 to May 13, 2008, the Plaintiff written three written confirmations with the content that he/she would have obtained unregistered resale and marginal profits after purchasing the instant land to a tax official in charge of the tax official on March 31, 2008, and that he/she would have obtained non-resale and resale gains (Evidence 15, the Plaintiff asserted that the above written confirmation was forged, but the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff’s writing of the Plaintiff’s written evidence No. 11 and the written statement of the above written confirmation are the same as that of the Plaintiff’s written evidence No. 11, which did not dispute the Plaintiff’s own writing, and thus, the above forged statement cannot be accepted). In addition, the Plaintiff’s assertion that it was insufficient to examine the Plaintiff’s signature and seal on April 21, 2008.

3) On March 25, 2008, newF also purchased the instant 3 and 4 land from the village association to a tax official in charge of the Central Regional Tax Office. However, it stated to the effect that, upon delegation from the Plaintiff for the sale and purchase of the said land, he purchased the said land again and gave the Plaintiff the purchase price. The evidence No. 8-1 stated in the purport contrary thereto is not directly prepared by the new FF, and it is insufficient to reverse the said statement made by the new FF.

4) According to the Plaintiff’s assertion, if the Plaintiff actually purchased only the neighboring land of this case and the land of this case was purchased by newF, etc., the purchase price paid by the Plaintiff to the Village Association should be KRW 000,000, but even if the amount paid under the Plaintiff’s name was verified as KRW 00,000, the Plaintiff did not provide any explanation to be

3. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The appeal filed by the Plaintiff shall not be accepted as groundless.