Seoul Administrative Court 201Gudan28649 ( October 15, 2012)

National High Court Decision 2005Du2019 ( August 17, 2005)

was filed after the expiration of the period for filing a lawsuit;

(1) The decision of the court of first instance is dismissed as it is unlawful to have been filed after the lapse of the filing period from the date of the decision of the court of first instance. The lawsuit by the designated person is not appropriate to seek revocation of the disposition, since there is no evidence to prove that the legal interests of the designated person

2012Nu8351 Revocation of imposition of capital gains tax

XX

Head of the District Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2011Gudan28649 decided February 15, 2012

September 25, 2012

October 19, 2012

1. The plaintiff (appointed party)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party).

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

【State Claim】

The defendant determined that the amount of capital gains tax of the plaintiff (appointed party, hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff") exceeds the amount of tax equivalent to the gift tax of 0A, thereby falling under an unfair act under Article 11101 (2) of the Income Tax Act, and the imposition of KRW 000 of capital gains tax for the year 2003 additionally paid to the plaintiff on October 16, 2004 shall be revoked.

【Preliminary Claim】

Pursuant to Article 97 (4) of the Income Tax Act, the Defendant donated the amount equivalent to the gift tax to 0AA by the Plaintiff. The imposition and notification of the capital gains tax of 000 won for the year 2003, which was added on October 16, 2004, shall be revoked to the Plaintiff.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's explanation concerning this case is the same as the statement of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, the court's explanation is citing it in accordance with the main sentence of Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, both the plaintiff and the Appointor's lawsuits are dismissed, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.