Suwon District Court-2017-Guhap-6775 (1.09, 2018)

As long as Article 20 (1) of the former Income Tax Act stipulates the income generated in the pertinent taxable period as earned income, it is reasonable to view that the amount exceeds the amount of the plaintiff'

(1) Even if the main provision was newly established during the proceeding in which the instant land was owned, insofar as the taxation requirement of the transfer of the instant land was not fulfilled at the time of the enforcement date of the main provision, the main provision amended in the direction to strengthen the taxation requirement at the time of the completion of the taxation requirement shall not be deemed to be contrary to the principle of non-payment in tax statutes or the principle of prohibition of retroactive taxation.

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2018Nu33571 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax, etc.

Plaintiff, respondent, etc.

Labor*

O Head of tax office

January 9, 2018

April 19, 2018

May 3, 2018

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 imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 53,645,970 for the Plaintiff on April 3, 2017 and KRW 5,364,590 for local income tax of KRW 53,64,590 for the Plaintiff on April 3, 2017 shall be revoked.

1. cite of the reasons for the written judgment in the first instance;

The reasoning of this Court is that the reasoning for this case is the same as the entry of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this Court shall accept it in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the

2. Conclusion

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