Ulsan District Court-2015-Guhap-5287 ( December 10, 2015)

In addition to the seal of approval, the stamp of approval for the increase contract without any separate contract shall be deemed to constitute the actual contract.

(The same as the judgment of the court of first instance) It is difficult to see that the seal of approval contract was falsely prepared or forged, and to dispose of the seal of approval contract by viewing it as the actual contract, such as the validity of the seal of approval contract is not denied only by the statement of

Articles 96 and 97 of the Income Tax Act

2016Nu2081 Revocation of disposition of imposing capital gains tax

IsaA

BB Director of the Tax Office

on January 30, 2016

October 21, 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 is revoked. The capital gains tax of April 1, 20103 rendered by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on April 1, 2014

83,584,390 won shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for this Court's ruling are as follows, except for the addition of "judgments on the plaintiff's assertion of a trial" in Paragraph 2 below, and therefore, it is identical to the reasons for the first instance judgment. Thus, this Court cites it as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 4

2. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion of the trial

A. The plaintiff's assertion

At the trial of the plaintiff, the plaintiff paid 300,000,000 won to the real estate broker, even if the non-party purchaser paid 300,000,000 won as the purchase price, and the plaintiff requested nn to sell the land of this case on the condition that 178,00,000 won was paid to her own. Accordingly, the plaintiff claimed that the plaintiff's broker and the purchaser broker of the non-party receive 300,000,000 won from the non-party purchaser to the non-party, and that 128,000,000 won should be paid as the brokerage fee, and then the sales contract was prepared as 30,000,000 won and delivered as requested to the plaintiff (the plaintiff is called the so-called "recognition work"). The plaintiff should be the tax base of the transfer income tax of this case as the transfer price of the land of this case.

B. Determination

On the other hand, the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s allegation that the Plaintiff was the broker, and if the Plaintiff comprehensively delegated the sale price to the seller on the condition that the Plaintiff was paid KRW 178,00,000,000 to him/her, 128,000,000, which is the difference between the amount received by the Plaintiff and the amount paid by the buyer (which is the purchase price under the inspection sales contract) shall be deemed to have been determined internally between the Plaintiff and the broker under the Plaintiff’s understanding, so the transfer price, which is the tax base of capital gains tax, shall be KRW 300,000,000, shall be deemed to have been determined.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion does not seem to have any mother or reason.

2. Conclusion

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