Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit
Suwon District Court 2010Guhap12799 ( December 08, 2010)
Case Number of the previous trial
National Tax Service Review and Transfer 2010136 (24 October 2010)
Title
Where part of the balance is not paid, whether capital gains are realized
Summary
(As in the judgment of the first instance court), the balance that has not been transferred and received is merely 2%, and in light of the preliminary return of capital gains tax, the assertion that the transfer was not supported due to the absence of the payment of part of the balance is without merit.
Cases
2011Nu3656 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax
Plaintiff and appellant
Gangwon A
Defendant, Appellant
The director of the tax office
Judgment of the first instance court
Suwon District Court Decision 2010Guhap12799 Decided December 8, 2010
Conclusion of Pleadings
August 24, 2011
Imposition of Judgment
October 19, 2011
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 457,022,58 against the plaintiff on February 1, 2010 shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. cite the judgment of the first instance;
The reasons why this Court is used in relation to this case are as follows, except for the addition of the judgment on the allegations made by the plaintiff in the trial as set forth in the following 2. The reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows: Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
2. Additional determination
As the Plaintiff transferred the instant land located within the rearrangement zone under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents to the project implementer to hear the land, the Plaintiff asserts that part of the transfer income tax should be reduced or exempted pursuant to Article 77(1)2 of the Tax Special Act, but the instant land was not designated as the rearrangement zone (see No. 9-1 and 2 of the evidence No.
3. Conclusion
Plaintiff
The appeal is dismissed.