Seoul Administrative Court 201Gudan528 ( October 10, 2011)

Cho High Court Decision 2010Du2853 ( October 25, 2010)

Investment in kind in a partnership subject to capital gains tax;

Since assets invested in the partnership are separate from the assets of investors, and the investors acquire the status of partners in return for such assets, the investment in kind in the partnership's assets constitutes the transfer that is a cause of taxation of capital gains tax, and thus the disposition of capital gains tax imposed is legitimate.

Article 88 of the Income Tax Act

2011Nu34810 Revocation for the Disposition of Imposition of Taxes

Ma XX

Head of the Do Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2011Gudan528 decided August 10, 2011

May 11, 2012

July 6, 2012

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 disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 imposed on the plaintiff and joint taxpayers on February 16, 2010 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's decision is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following additional parts among the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this court's decision is acceptable in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

O The following shall be added between Chapters 5, 14 and 15:

The plaintiff asserts to the purport that it is unjust to impose capital gains tax only on the real estate of this case which was reconstructed at the end. However, while the real estate of this case owned by the plaintiff was not subject to taxation of capital gains tax because the owner is not changed regardless of before and after reconstruction, the real estate of this case, which was owned by the plaintiff, was changed to NoBB, etc. by the owner before and after reconstruction, and this constitutes a legal act corresponding to the taxable cause of capital gains tax. This constitutes capital gains tax only on the real estate of this case. Therefore, it is unreasonable to impose capital gains tax only on the real estate of this case. The plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

2. Conclusion

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