early 2010 Heavy2181 ( December 23, 2010)

It is reasonable to deem that the income accrued from the transfer of land actually reverts to the Plaintiff who acquired the land.

In light of the fact that the plaintiff, the representative of the non-party corporation, completed the transfer of ownership on the land after the closure of the business, and immediately after the completion of the registration of ownership transfer, the debtor was established as the plaintiff, and the ownership was lost by voluntary auction, it is difficult to deem that the non-party corporation purchased the land

2011Gudan806 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

XX

Head of the Pakistan Tax Office

August 29, 2011

September 26, 2011

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 25,293,60 on December 1, 2009 and penalty tax of KRW 34,502,90 on a total of KRW 9,209,39 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 27, 2003, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Plaintiff was completed on the land of 000 Doz. 1,345 m2 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant land”) such as 000 m2,172 m2, Gangnam-si, Gangnam-si, Gangnam-si. The registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Plaintiff was completed on April 207, 207 on the land of 1,345 m2.

B. On December 1, 2009, the Defendant imposed capital gains tax of KRW 34,502,990, including additional tax, on the ground that the Plaintiff acquired and transferred the instant land, and did not file a return of capital gains tax within the lawful period (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on June 29, 2010, but the claim was dismissed on December 23, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3, each of the statements Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful since the plaintiff acquired the land of this case from the LB RedCC in 192 and 1994, the plaintiff could not register the ownership of this case as a corporation under the Farmland Act at the time of the purchase of the land of this case in order to extend the factory, and the payment of the price for the transfer of ownership shall not be made in full, and the transfer of ownership shall be deferred on June 30, 1996 by OOO on March 27, 2003, when the registration of the transfer of ownership was completed in the name of the plaintiff, who is the representative director of OOO Co., Ltd. on March 27, 2007, and the transfer of this case was sold by auction around 207, and the transfer of this case was used only for the repayment of the company's obligation, so even if the plaintiff acquired the land of this case, the time of acquisition shall be deemed to be the date of acquisition in 192 and 194.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

On the other hand, as shown in the plaintiff's argument, Gap evidence Nos. 1-1 and 2-1, 2-1, 5, 7-1, and 2-1, 3-2 of evidence Nos. 3-2, and each of the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings, i.e., OO or the plaintiff purchased the land of this case on or around 1992 and 1996, while the sales contract prepared by OO or the plaintiff lost it, they keep the most BB and RedCC's registration certificate and each sales contract as of March 27, 2003. After OO was closed on June 30, 1996, it is difficult to recognize that the plaintiff acquired the land of this case on or after the completion of the registration of ownership transfer, the plaintiff acquired the land of this case on April 2, 2003 as the collateral security right of this case on or after the completion of the registration of ownership transfer for the land of this case.

Therefore, on the date of acquisition, such as transfer of ownership, etc. of the land of this case, deeming the plaintiff who actually acquired the land of this case as the person to whom the income accrued from such transfer belongs, and imposing capital gains tax on the plaintiff is lawful in accordance with the principle of substantial taxation. The plaintiff's assertion

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.