Seoul Administrative Court-2015-Gu Group-50385 (2016.08)

Application of newly-built house reduction and exemption and acquisition tax additional tax shall be considered as necessary expenses.

1. Whether or not the Plaintiff’s name is stolen: 2. Reduction or exemption of transfer income tax on the acquisitor of newly-built house: 3. Whether or not an additional tax for acquisition tax may be paid as necessary expenses: the relevant infant;

Article 99-3 (1) 1 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2016Nu5188 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

this issue house has been allocated, and registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the plaintiff on this issue house

A. According to the evidence No. 8, the plaintiff and the non-party union's action to confirm the existence of the obligation.

Supreme Court Decision 2007Da70520 (main office), 2007Da20537 (Counterclaim) Ownership of the instant housing

It is recognized that a trial has been conducted on the premise that the right has been acquired)

○ On Part 5, Part 9, the following is added to the court of first instance

In addition, the owner of the sales price of the housing at issue of this case is the plaintiff, who is the owner, and the law.

As a result of distributing the proceeds of sale to the Plaintiff, no balance of the proceeds of sale shall be returned to the Plaintiff

not only has already occurred but also the difference between the amount of the plaintiff's debt and the amount of the dividend.

Since the plaintiff is removed and extinguished, substantial capital gains shall accrue to the plaintiff.

○ From 6th to 5th of the judgment of the first instance court is as follows.

Defendant’s office and registration tax of KRW 2,151,950 and attorney’s fee of KRW 9,88,493 as necessary

The fact that the tax base is calculated by applying the capital gains basic deduction amounting to KRW 2,500,000 is earlier.

For the same reason, 2,151,950 won among the plaintiff's assertion and 9,88,493 won, basic for the plaintiff's assertion

The portion of the deduction of KRW 2,500,000 is without merit.

○ On the 6th sentence of the first instance court, the "amount of expenditure" in the 11th sentence, and then "the use, change and improvement of transferred assets".

or expenses incurred for the convenience of use shall be added

2. Conclusion

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

○ Kim

○ Head of tax office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2015Gudan50385 decided June 8, 2016

September 13, 2016

November 1, 2016

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 capital gains tax of December 16, 2013 rendered by the defendant against the plaintiff on December 16, 2013

The imposition of KRW 163,360,573 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

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

In the third chapter of the judgment of the court of first instance, the following contents were applied to the tax base of KRW 2,50,000,000 for additional capital gains, and the tax base was calculated, and the sales price of the housing at issue of this case was distributed to all associations, etc., and the Plaintiff did not obtain capital gains since it did not actually paid to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the disposition of this case on the premise that the Plaintiff was the owner of the housing at issue of this case and the Plaintiff was the owner of the housing at issue of this case’s auction, and the disposition of this case on the premise that capital gains was generated to the Plaintiff by the auction of the housing at issue of this case was unlawful.

○ On the fourth decision of the first instance court, the following was added, and the following amount should be deducted from the amount of capital gains in the pertinent taxable period, but did not deduct the amount of KRW 2,500,000 per annum.

The following details are added to the 5th 8th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th of the first th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th 2000, the plaintiff argued that the plaintiff did not conclude the contract for parcelling-out within the period of the contract for parcelling-out and lost the status of the union members by withdrawing the contract for parcelling-out after the contract for parcelling-out within the period of the contract for parcelling-out.