Application of newly-built house reduction and exemption and acquisition tax shall not be deemed necessary expenses.

1. Whether or not the Plaintiff’s name is stolen: 2. Reduction or exemption of transfer income tax on the acquisitor of newly-built house: 3. Whether or not an additional tax for acquisition tax may be paid as necessary expenses: the relevant infant;

Article 99-3 (1) 1 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2015Gudan50385 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

This disposition is unlawful on the premise that it is the owner of the housing at issue.

(2) On December 30, 2002, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant key housing around December 30, 2002.

Since the transfer on May 26, 2008, the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, which was enforced on December 30, 2002, was enforced on December 11, 2002

Article 99-3 (1) 1 of the Act shall apply to the pertinent case in accordance with Article 99-3 (1) 1.

Income amount subject to the transfer income tax from the date of acquisition of newly-built house;

Despite the fact that the defendant should be deducted from this issue, the defendant did not consider this issue. Accordingly, the defendant did not consider this issue.

The disposition is unlawful.

(3) 5,514,800 won, management fees paid to ○○ apartment council of occupants, 8,031;

933 won, attorney fee 9,88,493 won shall be deemed necessary expenses, but the defendant shall do so.

The instant disposition is unlawful. Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination on the first argument

The plaintiff was allocated the housing of this case by Dong-ho lottery, but the liquidation amount, moving expenses, and the bureau

The non-party company did not pay the price of the public land, and the non-party company lent relocation expenses to the plaintiff.

by filing an application for provisional seizure on the housing at issue of this case with a claim claim, and making a decision of provisional seizure

the main issue of this case on January 3, 2004 due to the commission of the registration of provisional seizure according to the decision of the court below.

The fact that registration of preservation of ownership has been made in the Plaintiff’s name on the basis that such registration was made, as seen earlier.

As long as registration of preservation of ownership has been made in the future of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is at issue of this case.

The plaintiff was the owner, and only the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is that the non-party partnership is the plaintiff's member.

It cannot be deemed that the plaintiff deprived or stolen the plaintiff's name.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

D. Judgment on the second argument

The date of approval for use of the instant housing was December 28, 2000, and the instant key housing was the Plaintiff.

(a) In the case of housing acquired by a partner through a housing redevelopment association:

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff acquired ownership on December 30, 2002 on the building ledger.

On December 30, 2002, the housing of this case was acquired on December 30, 2002, and was enforced at the time.

The former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 6762 of Dec. 11, 2002) applied

The former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (Law No. 650, Aug. 14, 2001) provides that the date of approval for use shall be the acquisition date.

Article 99-3(1) of the Addenda (Article 6501, 6501, and 6501)

Where a newly-built house was acquired before May 23, 2001 under Article 13, the key house in this case

The provisions of capital gains tax reduction or exemption shall apply to the acquisitor of newly-built house located in this Seoul.

It can be said that the case does not correspond to the case.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit without further review.

E. Judgment on the third argument

Defendant’s office and registration tax of KRW 2,151,950 and attorney’s fee of KRW 9,88,493 as necessary

Since office is as seen earlier, registration tax of 2,151,950 won and attorney's fee among the plaintiff's assertion

The argument about KRW 9,88,493 is without merit.

The Plaintiff’s total amount of KRW 5,514,800, including additional tax, in addition to the registration tax recognized by the Defendant

It argues that it should be included in the required expenditure, but additional tax is due to the delay of the due date.

Since it is the amount equivalent to interest accrued, it cannot be viewed as being included in necessary expenses (income).

Article 163 subparag. 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Tax Act, and this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

The plaintiff paid to the ○○○ apartment council of occupants' representatives 8,031,933 won as necessary expenses.

management expenses, however, do not constitute capital expenditure of the assets.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit without further review.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed for lack of reason.

○ Kim

○ Head of tax office

March 16, 2016

June 8, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 163,360,573 against the plaintiff on December 16, 2013 by the former defendant working for the Gu office shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 1996, the Plaintiff acquired an unauthorized house located in ○○○○○, Seoul, ○○○-1, ○○○-1, ○○, an unauthorized house (hereinafter referred to as “previous house”).

B. In order to implement the housing improvement redevelopment project for the ○○○ Zone 8, which includes the previous housing, the housing improvement redevelopment project for the ○○ Zone 8 (hereinafter “the ○○ Zone 8”) entered into a contract with the non-party company (hereinafter “the non-party company”) to lend the expenses deemed necessary for the implementation of the project to the non-party association and its members and to execute the construction of building facilities.

C. On December 28, 200, the non-party company completed the construction of an apartment under the above contract and obtained approval for the use from the competent authority.

D. The Plaintiff was assigned with ○○○ apartment, ○○ apartment, ○○○, 1708, and one parcel outside 1708, ○○○, ○○, ○○, and ○○, (hereinafter “instant housing”), but did not pay the liquidation money, etc.

E. The non-party union and the non-party company urged the plaintiff to pay the liquidation amount, moving expenses, and the non-party company did not pay it to the plaintiff. The non-party company applied for provisional seizure of the house at issue of this case with the claim for the moving expenses loan to the plaintiff, and received the provisional seizure order on October 23, 2003, and the provisional seizure registration was made on January 3, 2004 due to the entrustment of the registration of provisional seizure.

F. On May 26, 2008, when the instant housing was sold through a compulsory auction, the Plaintiff filed a return on the transfer income tax with the Defendant at the time of auction on November 29, 2010, by making the transfer value as KRW 465,99,99, and the acquisition value as KRW 475,4339,915 (i.e., relocation expenses, liquidation amount, and land non-payment amount that the non-party association lent to, or paid on behalf of, the Plaintiff + KRW 460,030,622 + acquisition tax + KRW 5,514,80 + litigation expenses at the time of acquisition + KRW 9,88,493).

G. On December 16, 2013, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff filed an excessive report on the acquisition value, etc. of the instant housing, and subsequently corrected the acquisition value of the instant housing to KRW 223,039,314 (including KRW 90,000,000 + KRW 43,471,240 + KRW 43,471,240 + KRW 89,568,074, such as settlement money, + KRW 14,890,443 + KRW 2,151,950 + KRW 9,88,493 + KRW 9,88,493 + KRW 2,850,00 + KRW 179,790,760 (including KRW 11,278,512, KRW 5,757,278,00) for the Plaintiff in relation to the instant housing).

H. On February 27, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a petition for a tax trial on April 4, 2014, following an objection, and filed a petition. On October 13, 2014, the tax Tribunal rendered a decision to reduce the transfer income tax of 168,285,126 (including additional tax of 10,503,378 won, additional tax of 52747,965 won, and additional tax of 527,965 won, which was due to failure to file a return) by reducing the transfer income tax of 11,505,635 won by reducing the transfer income tax of 208 to 168,285,126 won (including additional tax of 10,503,378 won, additional tax of 52747,965 won, which was due to failure to file a return). On October 22, 2014, the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for a trial on October 222,

I. During the instant lawsuit, the Defendant decided to reduce capital gains tax of KRW 4,924,553 (including penalty tax of KRW 10,251,683, and penalty tax of KRW 50,592,057) to KRW 163,360,573 (including penalty tax of KRW 10,251,683, and penalty tax of KRW 50,592,057), which was reduced from the disposition of imposition on December 16, 2013 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 3, 5 through 7, 12 evidence, Eul 1, 3 through 8, 12 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The Plaintiff did not conclude a sales contract for the instant housing with the non-party union, and the sales contract was terminated (cancellation) in accordance with the articles of association of the non-party union as it did not enter into a sales contract or pay settlement money by October 2002, five years after the date of the sales contract. Therefore, the Plaintiff is not eligible for membership since the non-party union deprived of Plaintiff’s membership or stolen Plaintiff’s name. Therefore, the Plaintiff was not the owner of the instant housing