Cheongju District Court-2017-Gu Partnership-198 ( April 20, 2017)

Cho Jae-2016-China-3444 (Law No. 12, 2016.09)

Value-added tax and transfer income tax after distributing the issues of real estate after the standard market price is legitimate.

In light of the fact that the transfer value of the key real estate is merely 36.8% compared to the standard market price, and that it is difficult to deem that the transferee also operates the telecom and the building itself particularly changed, it is difficult to deem that the owner reported the transfer value of the key real estate according to reasonable standards.

[Related Acts]

Article 100 (Calculation of Gains on Transfer of Income Tax Act)

Daejeon High Court (Cheongju)-2017Nu3350 ( April 11, 2018)

황@@

o Head of the tax office

018.03.14

1, 2018.04

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The imposition of the value-added tax of KRW 50,583,480 for the first term of February 11, 2016 and the defendant** the head of the tax office's imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 48,794,630 for the first term of February 11, 2016 against the Plaintiff on February 11, 2016, shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for the judgment of this court are as follows: Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act are cited as it is in accordance with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (the plaintiff submitted additional evidence from No. 7 to No. 20-3 of the evidence of No. 1 in this court while embodying the argument in the first instance. However, in light of this, the fact-finding and decision of the first instance are justifiable, and there is no error as alleged by the plaintiff as the reasons for appeal. Meanwhile, the plaintiff again made each of the dispositions of this case more than two years and six months after receiving the plaintiff's return and payment of the value-added tax and the transfer income tax, and again made each of the dispositions of this case violates the principle of good faith, the principle of good faith

2. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is just in its conclusion, the plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.