Seoul Administrative Court-2012-Gu Group-19734 ( March 31, 2013)

Since the shares in the land are newly acquired through public sale, whether the price at the time of acquisition should be re-calculated and corrected.

The disposition of this case is legitimate because there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff acquired shares in the land at issue through a public auction, such as the plaintiff's assertion

Transfer Income Tax Act

Seoul High Court 2013Nu25544

AA

* Head of Tax Office*

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Gudan19734 decided July 31, 2013

March 19, 2014

April 2, 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 defendant shall revoke the disposition of imposition of KRW 128,604,110 against the plaintiff on August 9, 2011.

1. Grounds for the judgment of the first instance;

This Court’s reasoning is as follows: (a) the reasoning for this Court’s explanation is that the first instance court’s judgment is identical to the reasoning for the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff emphasizes or added in particular in this Court; and (b) such reasoning is cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

As confirmed by a certified copy of the register on the land of this case (A No. 1), the Plaintiff acquired the shares of this case due to a public auction on November 24, 2006, and it constitutes a new acquisition, re-audit of the acquisition value as of November 24, 2006, which was the time of acquisition due to a public auction, and accordingly correct the tax base and tax amount accordingly.

B. Determination

1) First, as alleged by the Plaintiff, there is no evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant shares due to the public sale on November 24, 2006, considering the overall evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, including the evidence No. 1, and all evidence submitted by the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff did not submit any evidence as to the acquisition of the instant shares through the public sale procedure, and the Plaintiff’s attorney confirmed the Korea Asset Management Corporation at the second date for pleading of the court, but confirmed that there was no material related to the public sale of the instant shares).

2) Rather, according to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, the plaintiff acquired on September 4, 2002 U.S. shares 6/34, and U.S.B shares 4/34 with respect to the land of this case, but had lost the U.S.B shares 4/34 due to the public auction procedure due to the attachment registration, etc., which was completed before the above acquisition, due to the attachment registration, etc., which was completed with the U.S. shares. However, on December 4, 2006, it is only recognized that the registration of change of ownership was made in order to remove the inconsistency on the ground that some (AA shares part) of the registration No. 25 as stated above was inconsistent with the substantive relationship.

3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit without further review.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance and its judgment.

As the conclusion is justified, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.