Seoul Administrative Court-2014-Gu Group-5765 (2015.09.04)

2014west 1076 ( October 16, 2014)

The purchase price of the transferee embezzled by the broker in the course of real estate transaction shall not be included in the transfer price of the transferor where the transferor's delegation is not confirmed.

The embezzlement of the broker is not included in the transfer value of the transferor because the transferor has not verified that the transferor has delegated his/her comprehensive authority related to the sale and purchase of real estate in embezzlement by the broker for the purchase and sale of real estate.

Article 114 of the Income Tax Act (Determination, Revision and Notification of Tax Base for Transfer Income and Amount of Tax)

Seoul High Court 2015-Nu61278 ( October 27, 2016)

WhiteO

*The Director of the Tax Office

on 13, 2016

on October 27, 2016

United States, U.S., U.S.C.

2015-Nu61278 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Capital Gains Tax, etc.

Plaintiff (Appellant) WhiteO

Defendant (Appellant)* Head of the tax office

on 13, 2016

on October 27, 2016

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

On January 2, 2014, the Defendant revoked the disposition of imposition of KRW 57,438,560 for capital gains tax of KRW 57,438,560 for the Plaintiff and KRW 17,004,980 for special rural development tax, and KRW 5,743,860 for local income tax of KRW 5,743,860 for the imposition of KRW 57,743,860 for the Plaintiff (the first instance court rendered a ruling dismissing the lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition of imposition of KRW 5,743,860 for local income tax

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to that part shall be dismissed.

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

This judgment is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following matters to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is based on Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the

On the other hand, the part 6 of the 20th "no reason exists" added to "(the defendant's assertion that KimO constitutes a seller's expression agent in connection with the conclusion of the contract of this case, but KimO only stated in the sales contract of this case as a buyer's agent, and there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff displayed to AAA the buyer the power of representation in connection with the conclusion of the contract of this case to KimO, or that the plaintiff actually conferred any basic authority of representation, the above argument of the defendant is without merit)."

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the cancellation of the disposition of imposition of transfer income tax and special rural development tax for the year 2009 shall be accepted with merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just and without merit, and it is dismissed and it is so decided as per Disposition.