Since the Plaintiff transferred the right to sell real estate, it is subject to capital gains tax.

Since the Plaintiff transferred a real estate sales right and reported a transfer income tax without permission, the instant disposition is legitimate.

Article 88 of the Income Tax Act

Suwon District Court 2015Gudan33190 decided to nullify the imposition of capital gains tax

ZO

O Head of tax office

December 18, 2015

January 22, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

On March 2, 2013, the Defendant confirmed that the imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 148,99,50 (including additional tax) for the Plaintiff on March 2, 2013 is null and void.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. A. Around 2005, “Bao” was purchased from OO-dong O-dong 1337-1 OO-O (hereinafter “O-construction”) upon the Plaintiff’s introduction. On January 26, 2011, upon the transfer of the purchase to another person on March 15, 201, the Plaintiff filed a report on the transfer income tax on March 15, 201, on the ground that at the time of the purchase, the Plaintiff paid OO, OO, or O-O-O-ship to the Plaintiff at the time of the purchase.

B. Accordingly, on March 2, 2013, the Defendant did not report capital gains tax even though the Plaintiff transferred the right to sell the said real estate to oO,OO, orOOO to oO, and determined and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 148,99,50 (including additional tax) for the capital gains tax for the year 2005.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 and 2-1 of Evidence No. 2

2. Whether the disposition is defective;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff did not acquire the right to sell the above real estate, and did not transfer it only to the grandchildren. The Plaintiff deposited OO, OO, andOO won into the Plaintiff’s account on June 10, 2005, but this was merely the Plaintiff received the down payment from oO on behalf of the Plaintiff for the construction of OO and delivered it to the O Construction. The Plaintiff did not receive it as the proceeds of the sale of the right to sell. Nevertheless, the instant disposition made on a different premise is null and void because its defect is significant and apparent.

2) The Defendant’s disposition of this case was solely dependent on the Plaintiff’s statement while rendering the instant disposition against the Plaintiff, and calculated necessary expenses of the Plaintiff as KRW 0 on the ground that it did not comply with the investigation method for determining the transfer income tax base and tax amount, and thus, the instant disposition is null and void as a matter of course.

B. Determination

1) According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 3, Eul evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, 3, and Eul evidence Nos. 3-1, 2-2-1, and 2-2, the plaintiff can recognize the fact that the plaintiff transferred the above real estate sale right to OO,OO, and received OOO,OO, andOO from oO on June 10, 2005 from oO to the plaintiff's account. The only statement of evidence Nos. 2 and 4 alone is insufficient to reverse it and there is no counter-proof. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion in this part is without merit.

2) According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 4 through 7, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the capital gains tax assessment data prior to the instant disposition, and submitted a written response to the purport that the Plaintiff did not transfer the right to sell the land, as well as the aforementioned investigation process, and it can be acknowledged that the Plaintiff did not present specific arguments or materials on the necessary expenses to be deducted even at the time of the closing of argument in the instant case. Thus, the Defendant cannot be said to have the same defects as the Plaintiff asserts in the process of investigation and decision for the instant disposition.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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