The instant secondary sales contract should be deemed to be on the extension line of the first sales contract.

The interpretation of a declaration of intent shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules and the common sense of society by comprehensively taking into account the contents of the language and text, the motive and background leading up to the expression of intent, the purpose and genuine intent to be achieved by the parties through their declaration of intent.

Article 96 of the Income Tax Act

2017Nu7788 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

UO

O Head of tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2016Gudan8481 Decided October 18, 2017

May 16, 2018

July 18, 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 140,915,830 against the plaintiff on July 6, 2015 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as follows, except for adding the following judgments to the pertinent part as to the contents asserted by the plaintiff in the trial, and therefore, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion

As the price for acquiring the instant real estate, the Plaintiff, in addition to KRW 750,00,00,000 as the purchase price stated in the sales contract, to the seller New OO in addition to KRW 750,00,00,00, ① OOO-dong 334-6,158 square meters of land and above ground buildings in OO-dong 334-6, 158 square meters, OO-dong 59-1,177 square meters of OO-dong 59-1,000, 11,785/782 of OO-dong O-dong 1,322 shares, shall be completed in the name of OO-O. As such, the acquisition price of the instant real estate in this case shall include the amount equivalent to the above real estate that the Plaintiff transferred to the newO and EO-O-O, and the amount equivalent to 5,420,000 won for acquisition tax and registration tax, should be recognized as necessary expenses.

B. Determination

With respect to the Plaintiff’s transfer of ownership of 1,322/11,785/11,785/10 of 00 O-dong O-dong 59-1,000 O-dong O-dong 59-1,177 square meters in addition to the Plaintiff’s payment of the purchase price under the sales contract as the price for the acquisition of the instant real property, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

In addition, according to the statement in Eul evidence No. 2, KRW 5,420,00, including the acquisition tax and registration tax of the real estate of this case claimed by the plaintiff, may be recognized as having been already included in necessary expenses at the time of the disposition of this case.

Finally, around November 5, 2003, the Plaintiff spent 10,248,50 won as the cost of creation of a farmland for OO-type 346 land for OO-type O-type O-type O-type 346, and there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff paid the above cost, and rather, according to the evidence No. 13, it is recognized that the OO-type O-type O-type 10,378,876 won was paid on November 15, 2003.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and it is so decided as per Disposition.