Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit
Supreme Court-2014-Du-43257 (No. 28, 2015)
Title
As part of the exercise of audit authority, the exercise of a partial right to ask questions to the other party for the error and correction of the tax investigation constitutes a duplicate investigation.
Summary
As part of the exercise of the audit right, the fact that the audit office finds errors and irregularities in the first tax investigation and finds out the real transaction value by exercising the right to ask questions to the other party who trades real estate in order to correct such errors and irregularities falls under the duplicate investigation.
Cases
2015Nu44976 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax
Plaintiff, Appellant
KimA
Defendant, appellant and appellant
○ Head of tax office
Judgment of the first instance court
Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2013Guhap17220 decided March 28, 2014
[Attachment Judgment]
Seoul High Court Decision 2014Nu47619 Decided September 30, 2014
Judgment of remand
Supreme Court Decision 2014Du43257 Decided May 28, 2015
Conclusion of Pleadings
December 17, 2015
Imposition of Judgment
on 14, 2016
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The defendant bears the total costs of the lawsuit after the filing of the appeal.
Purport of claim and appeal
1. Purport of claim
A disposition imposing gift tax on the Plaintiff on February 10, 2012, stating the details of imposition of gift tax in the attached Form.
all of each subparagraph shall be revoked.
2. Purport of appeal
The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
This Court's decision is identical to the reasons for the first instance court's decision, and therefore, Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the citizen
It shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Private Litigation Act.
2. Conclusion
Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is groundless.