Chuncheon District Court 201Guhap1984 (O18, 2013)

Even if it was not imposed for three years, it cannot be deemed that the public opinion statement was given that the tax disposition would not be imposed.

In order to apply the principle of the protection of trust to the acts of administrative agencies, the administrative agencies should name the public opinion that is the subject of trust to individuals, and there should be no reason for the administrative agencies to believe that the name of the opinion of the administrative agencies is legitimate and trust.

Article 163 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act

(Chuncheon)Revocation of disposition of revocation of capital gains tax and local income tax assessment;

United StatesB, the party taking charge of the action of the

Head of the District Tax Office

Chuncheon District Court Decision 201Guhap1984 Decided January 18, 2013

September 25, 2013

October 16, 2013

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant's disposition of imposition of the transfer income tax of February 1, 201 (the "OOOO on February 9, 201" appears to be erroneous) against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the corresponding entry in the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it refers to the main text of Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Claim concerning the time of transfer

ThisA recognizes the registration of this case as lawful and effective through an agreement between theCC Housing Association on March 3, 2008, and accordingly, it is deemed that the registration of this case was completed, and accordingly, it is confirmed that the sales contract and the registration of this case with the third party, which is an act of disposal by an unentitled person, are retroactively effective. As such, the transfer price of this case’s real estate should be deemed as June 10, 2004, which is the registration date of the above real estate. Accordingly, the transfer price of this case’s real estate should be calculated based on the standard market price. Nevertheless, the transfer price of this case’s real estate should be deemed as the transfer price of this case’s real estate as of March 3, 2008, which is the date of the above agreement, and thus, the disposition of this

2) Claim that violates the principle of trust protection.

Before reporting and paying the transfer income tax on April 30, 2008, thisA asked the National Tax Service's Internet homepage of this case and received answer and paid the same accordingly. The instant disposition imposed after the lapse of three years was contrary to the principle of trust protection.

3) Claim regarding the necessary expense deduction

Even if the transfer value of the real estate of this case should be calculated based on the actual transaction value, thisA appointed a defense counsel for the lawsuit on the real estate of this case, paid the fees for fees for fees for use and contingent fees for use, paid the fees for use to Does who first known about the real estate of this case as rewards for use, and paid the fees for use of OOO to NAE in relation to the transfer of the real estate of this case, and paid the fees for use of OO and the fees for use to POE in relation to the transfer of the real estate of this case as necessary expenses.

B. Determination

1) Determination on the assertion regarding the transfer timing

As seen earlier in the developments of the disposition, thisA filed a lawsuit claiming the invalidity of the registration of this case, which was completed in accordance with the sales contract concluded between the third party, one of which is the principal and the Dong, and theCC Housing Association, but withdrawn the lawsuit on March 3, 2008 upon agreement with the above union, and this agreement (No. 1-5) stated that thisA sells the real estate of this case to the above union, and this agreement was entered into with the said union, and thisA received all of the above purchase price OOOO members from the above union on the date this agreement was made. The statement that this case's registration completed in accordance with the sales contract between the third party under the above agreement and the above union should be deemed lawful and effective, and it should be deemed that the said agreement was made by comprehensively taking into account not the so-called "use of registration for the purpose of avoiding the title transfer registration made in the name of the above union, but the said agreement entered into between the said union and the said third party to the above real estate."

Therefore, the time of transfer of the real estate of this case shall be March 3, 2008 when the payment of the price was made under the agreement between thisA and the above association. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

2) Determination on the assertion of violation of the principle of trust protection

In general, in administrative legal relations, in order to apply the principle of trust protection to the acts of an administrative agency, first, the administrative agency should name the public opinion that is the subject of trust to the individual, second, there is no reason attributable to the individual's trust that the individual's statement of opinion is justifiable, third, the individual must act in a similar manner as a result of the individual's trust in the name of the administrative agency's statement of opinion, fourth, the administrative agency's disposition that is opposite to that of the opinion statement, thereby causing an infringement on the individual's interests, fifth, if an administrative disposition is taken in accordance with the previous statement of opinion, there is no possibility that it may seriously undermine the public interest or legitimate interests of a third party (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Du13592, Feb. 24, 200

However, according to the statement of No. 1-6 of this case, it is difficult to view that this case’s statement of public opinion that the National Tax Service would not impose a tax in the case of this case, although this case’s transfer income tax was reported and paid after this case’s transfer income tax was reported and paid, this case’s statement of public opinion that this case’s transfer income tax was not imposed for three years cannot be deemed to have been issued, even if this case’s report and payment was made by this case’s transfer income tax and the Defendant did not impose a tax for three years.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

3) Determination as to the assertion regarding necessary expenses deduction

According to the statement in Eul evidence No. 2, the defendant's disposition of this case is recognized as having already calculated OOOO as a lawyer's fee in relation to the lawsuit concerning the real estate of this case.

In addition, the evidence Nos. 4 and 5 evidence, testimony of witnesses of the first instance trial, and each order of the court of first instance to submit financial transaction information of this case is insufficient to recognize that thisA paid OO or OO or OO or won to E in connection with the transfer of the real estate of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Furthermore, even if it was paid, it is difficult to deem that it was directly paid for the transfer of the real estate of this case, and in calculating the transfer income tax of the real estate of this case, it is difficult to regard the acquisition value of the real estate of this case as expenses directly paid for the transfer of the real estate of this case as expenses, and in calculating the transfer income tax of the real estate of this case, Article 97 (1) 1 (b) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8911 of Mar. 21, 2008), Article 163 (12) and 176-2 (2) through (4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20730/1000 of the above,0000 of the above real estate.

In addition, the portion that thisA disbursed an OOO to a certified tax accountant shall not be considered necessary expenses in calculating the transfer income tax of this case as expenses related to the pronouncement and objection of the transfer income tax of this case.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.