District Court-2014-Gu Group-6102 ( September 9, 2015)

Cho-2014-China-1422 (2014.03)

The acquisition value claimed by the plaintiff is difficult to recognize because of lack of evidence of financial transactions, etc.

(1) In light of the fact that the acquisition value and the details of financial transactions claimed in a contract are inconsistent, the details of financial transactions and the amount are different from the date and amount of payment of the contract, and are paid in small amount, as stated in the report, it is difficult to recognize it as acquisition value. It is difficult to recognize it as necessary expenses because there is no relevant financial evidence and there is no broker under the sales contract.

Article 97 (Calculation of Necessary Expenses for Transfer Income)

Seoul High Court 2015Nu6015 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

Gangwon A

Head of PP Tax Office

Supreme Court Decision 2014Gudan6102 Decided September 9, 2015

November 1, 2016

November 29, 2016

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’s imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 67,980,560 on December 3, 2013 against the Plaintiff on December 3, 2011 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons why the court shall explain the instant case are with respect to the dismissal of the first instance court ruling as follows.

Since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance other than addition or deletion, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of

○ Rule 5 of the first instance court's second page "594-2" shall be read as "579-2"

○ An accusation of the column 10, 11 of the No. 4 table of the first instance court ruling to “deposit into N account in the name of SS.”

○ To deposit the column 12 of the title No. 4 of the judgment of the first instance court into N Account in the name of N Account in the name of N Account in the name of A.

○ From the 5th of the first instance judgment to the 6th of the second to the 6th of the final judgment.

② The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that, after paying the purchase price of SS, etc. with the purchase price of 153,700,000 won for 106,500,000 won for the purchase price to be returned was settled to be appropriated for the balance of the land No. 1 of this case. However, in light of the fact that the sale and purchase contract of Y was prepared without the presence of the broker, the name of the seller, and the location of SS, etc., it is difficult to regard the Plaintiff as a contract for the sale of SS. The lower part of the gold sheet (Evidence No. 5) stating the purport that the Plaintiff settled the unpaid price of the land No. 1 of this case with the purchase price of Y, it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff’s right to purchase 1 of this case was appropriated for 00,000 won for the purchase price of this case, and it is difficult to acknowledge that the Plaintiff’s right to purchase 50,000 won for 10,000 won for the purchase price of this case was stated below.

○ Deletion from 6th to 19th of the first instance judgment.

○ Part 9 of the Decision of the first instance court No. 9 does not include the following:

(A) The Plaintiff submitted the evidence that the officially assessed individual land price of the instant land No. 2 was increased from KRW 121,00 on January 1, 2004 to KRW 213,000 on January 1, 2005, and submitted the evidence No. 11, however, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff and TT has assessed the instant land No. 2 at a price higher than that at the time of acquisition).

○ “Entrys No. 8 of the first instance court’s decision” and, after addition, “the results of each inquiry into K Bank, South EastN and N Bank” of this Court.

00,000 won at the last place of the first instance judgment No. 9,000 won “15,000,000 won”

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.