early 2010west039 ( October 31, 2010)

The transfer income tax is levied even when ownership is transferred by force.

If the ownership of assets is transferred by the court's auction, the transfer income tax is levied because the ownership of the assets is transferred by the transfer for the consideration of the assets.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

46 46 46 46 46 46 48

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The imposition of capital gains tax, additional dues, and increased additional dues on December 1, 2009 by the defendant against the plaintiff on December 1, 2009 shall be revoked.

쇠鹬 쇠鹬 3000 쇠鹬 3000

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 25, 1998, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on March 25, 1998 in the Plaintiff’s father (the father) AD and EF each 1/2 shares in the name of the Plaintiff’s father (the father) and EF.

B. On August 26, 1998, with respect to the registration of provisional attachment (the claim amount of KRW 2 million) in the name of the creditor Hong Kong on August 26, 1998, and on January 29, 2002, the registration of attachment (the amount in arrears of KRW 40,063,590) in the name of the right-holder state (the Disposition Office) was completed, respectively, among the 1,412 square meters of land for 18 lots of CC, 18 lots of land for 1,412 square meters.

C. The instant land was registered for transfer of ownership under the name of the Plaintiff on March 2, 2002 on the ground of the gift dated February 28, 2002.

D. After that, on January 10, 2007, there was a decision to commence compulsory sale of the land of this case by credit branch of Suwon District Court (2007 other around 3983), and on December 13, 2007, on December 13, 2007, the land of this case was sold to 4.5.2 million won, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed under the name of KimOO on December 27, 2007.

E. Meanwhile, around December 1, 2009, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition that imposed KRW 10,768,630,000 calculated by subtracting the acquisition value from the successful bid price of KRW 10,731,200, and the transfer value of KRW 4.5.2 million as transfer income tax for the year 2007, by deeming that the Plaintiff intended to cultivate the instant land on December 27, 2007.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, 6, 7, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 3-1, Eul evidence No. 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition is unlawful for the following reasons.

(1) Since DoD had never known that it was a donation to the Plaintiff of the instant land, the donation is null and void. Therefore, the instant land is not owned by the Plaintiff.

(2) Even if the instant land is owned by the Plaintiff, prior to the donation to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff had already been liable for a total of 60,063,000 won or more, and this exceeds 45,20,000 won of the successful bid price. Accordingly, as to the instant land, there was no capital gains per se, which is the basis for imposing capital gains tax.

B. Determination

(1) Judgment on the plaintiff's first argument

The plaintiff's first argument is not acceptable in view of the following facts: (a) the aggregate land tax or property tax on the land in this case from 2002 to 207 can be recognized as having been delivered to each domicile of the plaintiff at the time of the plaintiff and paid in full, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the gift in this case is null and void, taking into account the following circumstances: (b) Gap evidence 8-1, 2, and Eul evidence 6-1, 6-1, 6-1, 6-1, 8-1, 8-2, and 6-2; and (c) the fact that the donation in this case is delivered to each domicile at the time of the plaintiff; (d) the relation between the plaintiff who is the father and the plaintiff who is the father; and (e) there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the donation in this case is null and void.

(2) Judgment on the second argument by the Plaintiff

Even in cases where the ownership of real estate is transferred through a compulsory auction, the successful bid price is attributed to the owner of the auction dong mountain, and even if there is no balance of the successful bid price to return to the owner of the auction real estate as a result of the payment or distribution of the successful bid price, the balance equivalent to the balance obtained by deducting necessary expenses, including the acquisition value of the auction real estate from the successful bid price is subject to taxation as capital gains of the owner of the auction real estate (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 84Nu508, Dec. 9, 1986; 86Nu711, Mar. 24, 1987; 90Nu6101, Apr. 23, 1991); second, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

(3) Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit, and there is no error in the disposition of this case by the defendant.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.