Seoul Administrative Court 201Gudan561 ( October 21, 2011)

Cho High Court Decision 2010Du2888 ( December 03, 2010)

It is difficult to recognize that contracts for sale in lots have been agreed upon.

It is insufficient to recognize that the contract for sale in lots is terminated or automatically terminated, and there is no objective data to recognize that the transfer of ownership is terminated without permission regardless of the intention of the transfer of ownership, and the transfer income tax imposed on the transfer of house on the date of transfer of ownership is legitimate.

Article 98 of the Income Tax Act

Article 162 of the Enforcement Decree of Income Tax Act

2011Nu40303 Revocation of disposition of imposing capital gains tax

XX

Head of Seodaemun Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2011Gudan561 decided October 21, 2011

May 3, 2012

May 24, 2012

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. The defendant revoked the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of 000 won on February 1, 2010 against the plaintiff (the plaintiff corrected the purport of the claim as above through the petition of appeal dated November 8, 201, and it seems that penalty tax is included in the recorded tax amount).

1. The reasoning for the court's explanation in this decision is as stated in the reasoning for the decision of the court of first instance, except for using "the instant disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of 000 won (including additional tax, evidence No. 1) belonging to the year 2007, which determines and notifies the part of "the instant disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of 2007," which is referred to in Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, among the reasons for the decision of the court of first instance. Therefore, it is cited for this decision in accordance with this decision.

2. In the appellate court, the plaintiff agreed to sell the housing of this case with Korea under the condition that the plaintiff did not pay all the purchase price of the housing of this case, and the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the plaintiff on June 27, 2006 on the housing of this case (hereinafter referred to as "transfer of this case") was completed on June 27, 2006, and therefore, the actual owner of the housing of this case at the time of the transfer registration of this case was Han-A, but the disposition of this case was made on the premise that the plaintiff acquired the housing of this case and transferred it to MaB et al., and it was unlawful.

(5) The Plaintiff’s claim that the Plaintiff had no record-keeping on the 6th anniversary of the Plaintiff’s initial purchase of the instant housing was 0.2, and that the sales contract was terminated or automatically terminated, as otherwise alleged by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff’s claim that the Plaintiff had no record-keeping on the 6th anniversary of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the transfer registration was issued on June 27, 2006, and that there was no objective evidence that the Plaintiff had no record-keeping on the 6th anniversary of the Plaintiff’s initial purchase of the instant housing. The Plaintiff’s claim that the Plaintiff had no record-keeping on the 6th anniversary of the Plaintiff’s initial purchase of the instant housing was 0.7. The Plaintiff’s claim that the Plaintiff had no record-keeping on the 60th anniversary of the Plaintiff’s initial purchase of the instant housing was 60th anniversary of the Plaintiff’s initial purchase of the instant housing. The Plaintiff’s claim that the Plaintiff had no record-keeping on the 60th anniversary of the Plaintiff’s initial purchase of the housing was 70.