Seoul Administrative Court 201Gudan17250 (O6.01)

2010west 4013 (O4.21)

The term "person who concludes a sales contract and pays the down payment" in Article 99 (1) 2 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act means the person who has completed the delivery of the agreed down payment.

The term “person who concludes a sales contract and pays the down payment” in Article 99(1)2 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act refers to the person who has completed the conclusion of the sales contract and the delivery of the down payment agreed between the parties concerned, and the person who has not paid the down payment in full shall not be deemed to fall under this case. Therefore, it is not deemed that the Plaintiff paid the down payment in full within

2012Nu17560 Revocation of imposition of capital gains tax

Park AA

Head of Geumcheon Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2011Gudan17250 decided June 1, 2012

May 16, 2014

June 13, 2014

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 disposition that the defendant notified the plaintiff on October 25, 2010 to correct the capital gains tax belonging to the year 2009 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

"A. On August 26, 200, the Plaintiff transferred OO-dong O-dong OE apartment O-dong O-dong 1714 EEE apartment O-dong O-dong O (hereinafter "the apartment of this case") on June 30, 2009. The Plaintiff reported the confirmation of capital gains tax following the transfer on May 14, 2010, OO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O(hereinafter "the apartment of this case"). The Plaintiff did not meet the requirements for special deduction for long-term possession under Article 90 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 6, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The apartment sales contract (Evidence A) of this case states the contract date on July 5, 199 and the down payment as OOO on June 15, 199. The plaintiff paid OOOOOO to the seller on June 16, 199, OOOOO, June 24, 199, OOOOOO, June 30, 199, and OOOOOOOO from June 15, 199 to June 30, 199 (the plaintiff claimed that the payment date of OOOO was the date of July 2, 199, but the plaintiff claimed that the payment was made four times during the period from June 15, 199 to June 30, 19 (the plaintiff claimed that the payment date of OOOO was the date of July 2, 199).

However, in fact, the down payment for the apartment sale contract of this case was concluded on June 15, 199 as an OOO or OOOO won and paid down payment OOOO won or paid down payment after concluding a sales contract on June 16, 199.

Even if the down payment for the apartment sale contract of this case is an OOO won, as seen above, the OOO was fully paid between June 15, 199 and June 30, 199.

Therefore, the Plaintiff constitutes a person who concludes a sales contract and pays the down payment for the instant apartment within the newly-built house acquisition period under Article 99 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (from May 22, 1998 to June 30, 199) and satisfies the requirements for reduction and exemption under the said provision. The Defendant’s disposition on a different premise is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion that the down payment for the apartment sale contract of this case is an OOO or OOOO.

The sales contract form (No. 4) between the plaintiff and the seller, which is a disposal document, shall be written in the OO of the down payment, and the payment deadline of the down payment on July 5, 199, respectively, as of July 5, 199, and there is no content that separately determines the payment deadline of the down payment other than the contract date.

The plaintiff's above assertion concerning the amount of down payment and the date of contract conclusion is contrary to the contents of the above disposition document, and it is difficult to believe that Gap evidence Nos. 13 (CF's factual confirmation) and witness F's testimony corresponds to the plaintiff's facts, and each statement of Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 5, 9 through 12, 14 through 18 (including each number), which corresponds to the plaintiff's assertion, are insufficient to recognize the plaintiff's assertion, and there is no other evidence to prove it.

(2) The plaintiff's assertion that the OOO is paid to the seller by June 30, 1999

In accordance with the Plaintiff’s assertion, objective data include the Plaintiff’s statement of liquidity trading (Evidence No. 3) on the Plaintiff’s account. According to the Plaintiff’s account number (O-O-O-O-O-O-OOO), the Plaintiff stated that the Plaintiff was dispatched on June 13, 199, the O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-9 on June 30, 199, and that the deposit was made on June 30, 199. Furthermore, it does not indicate that the Plaintiff paid the amount to the seller. However, according to the Plaintiff’s account number submission from June 30, 199 to the Plaintiff’s account number issued on June 30, 199, the Plaintiff appears to have paid the amount to the seller.O-O-O-O-O-O-O-9 on the account of the Plaintiff’s deposit account.

In addition, it is difficult to believe that Gap evidence No. 19 (F's factual confirmation) corresponding to the plaintiff's assertion is stated, and there is no other evidence to prove it otherwise.

(3) The term “person who concludes a sales contract and pays the down payment” under Article 99(1)2 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act refers to the person who has completed the conclusion of the sales contract and the delivery of the down payment agreed between the parties, and the person who has not paid the down payment in full shall be deemed not to fall under this. As seen above, as the Plaintiff did not seem to have paid the down payment within the newly-built house acquisition period (from May 22, 1998 to June 30, 199) as stipulated under Article 99 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, the Plaintiff failed to meet the requirements for reduction and exemption. The Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise is without merit, and the Defendant’s disposition of this case is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.