Seoul Eastern District Court 2014Kadan59317 ( October 24, 2015)

In person, reporting or paying capital gains tax as a resident shall not be deemed to be void as a matter of course.

The plaintiff's report and payment act cannot be deemed to have a serious defect in the plaintiff's report payment act, and further, it cannot be deemed that the defect in the appearance is apparent, and therefore it cannot be deemed to be a legitimate invalidation.

Article 741 of the Civil Act: Contents of Unjust Enrichment

2015Na26292 Return of unjust enrichment

1. AA (BBB BBBB) (BB);

1. Korea;

July 8, 2016

July 22, 2016

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 95,272,067 won and 6,394,147 won among them from April 19, 2007; 286,90 won from June 1, 2007; 27,108,790 won from September 1, 2007; 36,859,870 won from December 1, 2007; 24,622,360 won from March 1, 2008 to the date of delivery of a copy of each complaint of this case; and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and this Court’s reasoning is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for correction, modification, or addition as follows. Thus, this Court’s reasoning is cited under the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. The parts corrected, changed, or added;

(a) correct the first instance court’s second sentence “CCB date” as “CCB date.”

B. On October 6, 2011, the 3th judgment of the first instance court changed 'after the transfer of inherited real estate' to 'after the transfer of inherited real estate on November 15, 201, and the 14th judgment changed 'after the transfer of house on October 6, 201' to 'after the transfer of house on October 6, 201 and at the time of the transfer of the above house.'

(c) To revise Article 45-2(2)1 and 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes as Article 45-2(2)1 and 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which is written from No. 4th to 16th of the first instance judgment.

D. According to the judgment of the court of first instance No. 7, “as of 15,” “as of 2007 through 2008, part of the transfer income tax for the shares of this case was refunded on October 5, 2012 after the act of reporting transfer income tax for the shares of this case was conducted in around 2007 and around 2008.”

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.