Seoul Administrative Court-2016-Gu Group-53466 ( August 19, 2016)

No matter what is public opinion, it is proposed that the rule of taxpayer will be applied.

Since the defendant did not carry out a public opinion statement that is the subject of trust to the plaintiff, the defendant's argument about the principles of administrative trust protection of the plaintiff is without merit, without considering any further requirements.

Article 15 (Good Faith and Sincerity)

2016Nu60920 Revocation of disposition rejecting capital gains tax rectification

○○

00. Head of tax office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2016Gudan53466 decided August 19, 2016

December 1, 2016

December 22, 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 rejection of an application for rectification of capital gains tax filed by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on March 5, 2015

The disposition shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as follows, and it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition of the judgment on the plaintiff's assertion at the appellate court to the following 2.2. Thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Parts used for cutting.

○○, Nonparty 5 of the second instance judgment, “the newly-built house of this case was transferred”, and around June 2006, the newly-built house of this case was considered as “the newly-built house of this case”.

Article 45(2) of the Transfer Income Tax Act in the second place of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be applied to the "preliminary return of transfer income tax". Article 45-2(2) of the first place of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be applied to the "Article 45-2(2)". The judgment on the plaintiff's appeal shall be made on the second place of the judgment of first instance.

A. The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that, although the Defendant trusted that he/she would make a disposition in accordance with the Supreme Court Decision 2013Du12690 Decided December 11, 2014, the Defendant’s refusal of such a request is against the good faith principle or constitutes an abuse of rights.

B. In general, in order to apply the principle of protecting trust to the acts of an administrative agency in administrative legal relations, the first administrative agency should name the public opinion that is the subject of trust to the individual; second, the administrative agency's trust in the statement of opinion should not be attributable to the individual; third, the individual should have trusted that the statement of opinion is justifiable; third, the administrative agency should have conducted any act corresponding thereto; fourth, the administrative agency's disposition contrary to the above statement of opinion should cause an infringement on the individual's trust in the name of opinion; fifth, when taking an administrative disposition in accordance with the above statement of opinion, it should not be likely to seriously undermine the public interest or legitimate interests of a third party (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Du8431, Dec. 15, 2016). In this case, there is no need to consider any other public opinion statement that is the subject of trust to the plaintiff; and therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on the administrative trust protection principle of the plaintiff does not constitute abuse of rights.

3. Conclusion

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