Seocho 208west 2260 ( October 30, 2008)

Whether it constitutes necessary expenses recognized as capital expenditure amount

It is not sufficient to recognize that video, witness, and testimony alone have been disbursed as a capital expenditure amount, or that they have been disbursed in order to extend the service life or to increase the value of the apartment.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

Article 97 (Calculation of Necessary Expenses for Transfer Income Tax)

Article 67 (Fiction of Immediate Depreciation)

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 9,943,743 against the Plaintiff on May 8, 2008 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고는 1993. 2. 24. 서울 강남구 ★★동 134-21 ☆☆아파트 10동 115호(면적 109.49㎡, 이하 '이 사건 아파트')를 취득하여 보유하다가 2004. 4. 29. 양도하였다.

B. On June 30, 2004, the Plaintiff calculated transfer margin of KRW 550,00,000, which is the actual transaction value, and KRW 175,000,000, and capital expenditure, etc. of KRW 61,972,00, and subsequently paid KRW 59,654,751.

C. The Defendant recognized KRW 6,872,00 among KRW 61,972,00, which was deducted by the Plaintiff from capital expenditure, etc., but deemed that the remainder of KRW 55,100,00 (see the table of capital expenditure, etc. below) is not recognized, and issued an additional notice of the capital gains tax amounting to KRW 19,525,613 on May 8, 2008 (hereinafter “the initial disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff filed a request for tax adjudication on the initial disposition with the Director of the Tax Tribunal. The head of the Tax Tribunal recognized KRW 27,000,000 among KRW 55,10,000,00 not recognized as capital expenditure, etc. on October 30, 2008, and decided that the remainder of KRW 28,10,000 shall not be recognized as necessary expenses. Accordingly, the Defendant issued a revised notice of capital gains tax reduction of KRW 9,581,870 on November 5, 2008 (hereinafter “instant disposition”). As such, the Defendant issued a revised notice of capital gains tax reduction of KRW 9,581,870 on November 5, 2008 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Entry of Evidence A1, 2, Evidence 1, 2(including paper numbers), the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff disbursed the amount indicated in the list of capital expenditure as the detailed statement. 28,100,000 won, which the Defendant did not recognize as necessary expenses, is also included in the above list. This also constitutes repair cost spent to extend or increase the value of the instant apartment. Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

갑2 내지 9, 12호증의 각 기재 및 영상, 증인 홍@@의 증언만으로는 원고가 28,100,000원을 자본적지출액표의 기재 명목으로 지출하였다거나 내용연수를 연장시키거나 이 사건 아파트의 가치를 현실적으로 증가시키기 위하여 지출한 비용이라고 인정하기에 부족하고 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없다. 따라서, 원고의 주장은 이유 없다.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.