Seoul Administrative Court 2014Gudan5728 ( October 19, 2015)

Whether capital gains tax is levied within the land transaction permission zone;

(1) The Defendant’s assertion on the premise that the instant sales contract was finally and conclusively effective on 0.00.00.00.00, on the ground that the instant sales contract was null and void due to the transfer of ownership to a third party during the auction procedure without obtaining land transaction permission on the instant real estate.

Article 88 of the Income Tax Act

2015Nu51790 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

○ Kim

○ Head of tax office

May 26, 2016

June 23, 2016

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu and purport of appeal

1. Purport of claim

Transfer income tax of 000 won for the transfer income tax of 2003 owed to the Plaintiff on January 2, 2014 (transfer income tax)

The imposition of additional tax of KRW 00, additional tax of KRW 000, increased additional tax of KRW 000 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revocation shall be dismissed.

1. Scope of adjudication of this court;

As stated in the purport of the claim, the Defendant filed a claim for the cancellation of capital gains tax and additional tax of KRW 000, additional tax of KRW 000, increased additional tax of KRW 000, and increased additional tax of KRW 000 among them. The court of first instance dismissed the lawsuit on the claim for cancellation of increased additional tax of KRW 00,000 among them, and rendered a judgment that accepted the Plaintiff’s claim for cancellation of the remainder of the disposition. Accordingly, the subject of the judgment of this court is limited to the claim for cancellation of the disposition of capital gains tax and additional tax of KRW 00,000 as

2. Partial citement of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows: (a) the pertinent part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (Articles 8(2) and 420 of the Administrative Litigation Act, and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, i.e., the pertinent part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (Articles 5 through 15, 5 through 4, 5, 13 through 17, 9, and 11). As such, this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical.

Parts used for cutting.

- The real estate stated in paragraph (5) in the third place of the judgment of the first instance court is deemed to be “real estate indicated in paragraph (5)” and the “san00-000 square meters” in the 20th place shall be deemed to be “san0-000 square meters”, respectively.

- Part 5 of the judgment of the first instance court No. 13 of the 5th judgment "3. Whether the disposition is lawful" is "2. Whether the disposition is legitimate".

- It is difficult to conclude that “it is difficult to see that it was unreasonable to see that it was unreasonable” in the 12th sentence of the first instance judgment.

Parts to be added

- The following is added to the 7th judgment of the first instance court that "it is difficult to see that it falls under the transfer of assets":

(1) The Defendant asserted to the effect that the instant disposition was justifiable on the ground that the instant sales contract became final and conclusive only after the instant real estate subject to the instant sales contract was rescinded in the land transaction permission zone on October 0, 201, but the instant disposition was justifiable. However, the instant sales contract, where the land was transferred to a third party without a land transaction permission, was finally null and void due to the transfer of ownership to a third party during the auction procedure as seen earlier. Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion on the premise that the instant sales contract was final and conclusive on October 0, 201, is null and void.

3. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is groundless.