Suwon District Court 2013Gudan4365 (02.05)

The disposition of this case based on the premise that the plaintiff sold the building of this case to the Zridge shall be unlawful.

Despite the sales contract and the entry of the real estate register as to the building of this case, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff donated the building of this case to the Zbian association. Thus, the disposition of this case under the premise that the plaintiff sold the building of this case to the Zbian association is unlawful.

Seoul High Court 2014Nu4504 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing Capital Gains Tax

AAA

BB Director of the Tax Office

Suwon District Court Decision 2013Gudan4365 Decided February 5, 2014

July 16, 2014

July 30, 2014

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The disposition of imposition by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on January 8, 2013 of the capital gains tax of 2011 shall be revoked.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

This court's reasoning is as follows: "The reasons why this court should explain", "the plaintiff's assertion", and "related Acts and subordinate statutes" are as stated in each corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance from 17th to 2th 18th 18th , so they are cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

(a) Basic facts;

In full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, and Eul evidence Nos. 2 (including each number), and the testimony and the whole purport of oral arguments by Park J-J as witnesses of the party, the following facts are recognized:

1) On February 6, 2001, the Plaintiff acquired an OO-dong Nit (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”). On June 17, 2010, the lease deposit was set at OOwon and the lease term was set at two years and leased to HaH.

2) On November 23, 2011, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant building on the grounds of sale and purchase on the same day. However, on October 15, 2012, the Z school again completed the registration of ownership transfer with the Plaintiff’s name on the grounds of sale and purchase on October 9, 2012.

3) The ParkJ, the pastor of the Z church, testified to the purport that this Court donated the instant building to the ZJ to make a contribution, and that, at the time, the Plaintiff, who was aware of the Z church, transferred the instant building to the ZJ, assessed the instant building as an OO member and the OO of the lease deposit, the Plaintiff, through a certified judicial scrivener, completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the preparation and sale of the sales contract through the certified judicial scrivener, and thereafter, the Plaintiff again transferred the registration of ownership transfer based on the sale under the name of the Plaintiff, with the Plaintiff’s return of the instant building.

B. Determination

In full view of the evidence adopted in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as well as the purport of the entire testimony and arguments of the ZJ on the building of this case, the following conditions are as follows: ① at the time the transfer of ownership is registered under the name of the Plaintiff as to the building of this case; ② at the time when the transfer of ownership is registered again under the name of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff and the ZJ did not pay money, such as the purchase price, etc.; ② at the time of the sale contract on the building of this case prepared between the Plaintiff and the ZJ, the sale price was determined as the ZZ as the OO, and the intermediate payment was not specified in the sale contract on the building of this case; ③ at the time of the completion of the transfer of ownership in the register of the ZJ on the building of this case, the Plaintiff and the ZJ did not have any special reasons to regard the sale of the building of this case as the sale contract on the building of this case, and as such, the Plaintiff appears to have purchased the ownership deposit and the ownership deposit of the Z as the Plaintiff.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted with due reasons, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, so it is so decided as per Disposition by accepting the plaintiff's appeal.