Plaintiff (Attorney Lee Jae-ho, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Deputy Director of the Tax Office

Incheon District Court Decision 2011Guhap1249 Decided September 29, 2011

March 30, 2012

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's refusal to refund KRW 27,046,747 out of KRW 50,794,228 of the transfer income tax belonging to the plaintiff on July 30, 209 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for the judgment of this court are as follows: “The objective value of the first instance court’s first instance court’s first instance court’s first instance court’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s first instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s “attention of the residence” is “attention of the residence.” The first instance court’s second instance judgment (“Seoul High Court Decision 2006Nu19282, Feb. 14, 2007; Supreme Court Decision 2007Du6700, Jun. 14, 2007”; and the first instance judgment’s first instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s “contention of the purchase value” or “acquisition tax, registration tax, or other incidental expenses” under Article 89 subparag. 1 or 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act’s second instance judgment’s lack of evidence to acknowledge the transfer of assets in question.”

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-chul (Presiding Judge)