early 2010west0203 ( October 14, 2010)

Whether the actual acquisition price of the special sale right exists

Although the plaintiff asserts that the special purchase right should be included in the necessary expenses of the apartment that has been acquired and transferred, the plaintiff acquired the apartment house, not separately acquired the special purchase right, and the special purchase right is given as the apartment house has been expropriated, the amount of the special purchase right payment is included in the cost for acquisition of the apartment house.

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. Litigation costs shall be borne by the Plaintiff

The Defendant’s imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 45,310,700 against the Plaintiff on June 1, 2009 shall be revoked.

쇠鹬 쇠鹬 3000 쇠鹬 3000

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고는 2008. 9. 10. 서울 AA구 BB동 844 CCCCCC7단지 704동 1005호 (이하 '이 사건 아파트'라 한다)를 DD로부터 376,780,000원에 취득하였고, 같은 해 11. 7. 이 사건 아파트를 양@@에게 446,780,000원에 양도하였다.

B. Upon filing a voluntary report of capital gains tax around December 2008, the Plaintiff reported the acquisition value of the instant apartment to KRW 473,658,598,00,000, which is the sum of KRW 90,000,000,000, and the Defendant did not recognize the hepatitis of KRW 90,000,000 as the acquisition value of the instant real estate on June 1, 2009, and did not recognize it as the acquisition value of the instant real estate, and imposed capital gains tax of KRW 45,310,70 for the year 208, and notified the instant disposition.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 5 to 8 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply)

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On June 1, 2005, the Plaintiff purchased GG-type 302, GG-type 302 located in Seoul EE-gu FF-dong 915-4 (hereinafter “instant apartment house”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 7, 2005. At that time, E-gu office has confirmed a plan to purchase the said apartment house for the purpose of incorporating the said apartment house into a public parking lot construction site and grant its owner the special right to sell the apartment house constructed by Seoul Metropolitan Government.

In order to acquire a special right to purchase apartment houses, the Plaintiff purchased only the special right to purchase from HoH, a pre-sale seller of the instant apartment house, in the amount of KRW 95,00,00,00, and agreed that the seller shall have the right to purchase the subsequent compensation, and in fact, the compensation was paid to the seller as it is.

Therefore, the plaintiff does not actually acquire the apartment house of this case but acquire only the special right to sell the apartment of this case, and the cost of 95,000,000 won should be included in the necessary expenses of the apartment of this case, not in the apartment house of this case, and the disposition of this case on a different premise is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) The head of EE requested the head of the Dong office having jurisdiction over February 2005 to recommend the site subject to the installation of urban planning facilities (parking lot), and the head of Dong office having jurisdiction over the location of the instant apartment house was recommended as the site subject to the location of the instant apartment house on May 18, 2005.

(2) The sales contract of June 1, 2005 between the Plaintiff and HaH entered the real estate as "Seoul EE-Gu (33 square meters) where real estate is located" and "1. This contract is a sale and purchase of the right to occupy a special apartment unit for SH construction, and compensation (land and buildings) incurred after the sale has the right of the seller and the buyer has the right to move in." 2. The deposit and management of the tax payer is responsible for the seller.

(3) On June 7, 2005, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership from the Kim J on the instant tenement on the ground of sale on June 2, 2005.

(4) On October 7, 2005, the head of EE established an urban planning facility (parking lot) plan with respect to the location of the instant apartment house, and on January 26, 2006, the decision to authorize the said plan was made on August 25, 2006, and on August 25, 2006, a sales contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the head of EE-gu with respect to the instant apartment house with a purchase price of KRW 105,66,660, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of E-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on August 30, 206.

(5) On September 7, 2006, the Plaintiff received compensation for the instant apartment house from the head of EE, and reported the transfer value and acquisition value of the instant apartment house as KRW 36,000,000, respectively, with respect to the transfer of the instant apartment house, and entered into a sales contract with DD on July 8, 2008.

[Ground of recognition] Items A 1 through 5, 10, 11, Eul evidence No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

Considering whether the Plaintiff’s 95,00,000 won can be deemed as necessary expenses for the apartment of this case, the following circumstances revealed earlier, i.e., the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the apartment of this case before establishing an urban planning facility plan or making a decision thereon, so it was impossible for the Plaintiff to transfer only the special right to purchase the apartment of this case, separate from the apartment of this case, and 2) on June 1, 2005 between the Plaintiff and Hah H to the effect that the sale of the apartment of this case’s special right to purchase the apartment of this case’s 00,000 won can be seen as the sale of the apartment of this case’s 00,000 won to acquire the right to purchase the apartment of this case’s 50,000,000 won to acquire the right to purchase the apartment of this case’s 10,0000,0000 won, 10,000,000,000 won, 90,000,0,00 won, etc.

Therefore, the disposition of this case that was not included in the necessary expenses of the apartment of this case is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.