Suwon District Court 2010Guhap1334 (O6.30)

Early High Court Decision 2009Du3227 ( October 23, 2010)

It is recognized as the actual owner of land transfer income.

(As the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the judgment of the court of first instance) and there is no evidence to deem that the sales contract was forged, and thus, it is reasonable to deem that another joint purchaser was the actual owner of the land as the actual owner of the land by withdrawing from the sales contract.

2011Nu26932 Revocation of disposition of revocation of capital gains tax imposition

XX

Head of Pyeongtaek Tax Office

Suwon District Court Decision 2010Guhap1334 decided June 30, 201

March 7, 2012

April 18, 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 court is revoked. The disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 on June 10, 2009 ( KRW 000 +00) that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff was revoked (the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 on April 1, 2009, which was issued by the Defendant, was absorbed into the disposition of increase in capital gains tax on June 10, 2009. The Plaintiff sought revocation of the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 on April 1, 2009, but its purport, including this, appears to have changed to revoke the entire disposition of increase in capital gains tax issued by the Defendant on June 10, 2009).

1. cite the judgment of the first instance;

The reasons why this Court is used for this part are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the following dismissal. The reasons shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

After determining "after the second below the second below, the next first to the second below shall be the following:

On June 10, 2009, the total amount of capital gains tax for the year 2006 was KRW 000,000. Here, the tax amount calculated by subtracting the above KRW 000, which is the amount of the previous decision and the tax amount of the notice, was corrected and notified.

In addition, "the amount equivalent to 00 won out of the total investment amount to be returned to KimA later" has been deducted from the investment amount of 000 won which was invested by "Gima" among the 7th and the 6th and the 7th and the 7th and the 6th after being invested by "Gima".

2. Conclusion

The appeal is dismissed.