Whether the Plaintiff had sold the instant real property before the purchase thereof, and whether the additional deduction was made in necessary expenses

As the Plaintiff sold the instant real estate unregistered, the Plaintiff is liable to pay global income tax, and the cost of cancelling the right to collateral security cannot be additionally deducted as necessary expenses.

2016Nu8011 global income and revocation of disposition

○ ○

Head of Si Tax Office

Suwon District Court Decision 2015Guhap71595 Decided December 6, 2016

March 21, 2017

April 4, 2017

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. On May 26, 2015, the Defendant revoked all the imposition of KRW 47,866,940 of global income tax and KRW 3,823,990 of local income tax belonging to the Plaintiff in 2004.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the judgment in this case is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following parts, and thus, the reasoning for the judgment in this case is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2)

○ A written judgment of the first instance court shall be executed from 5th to 7th, as follows:

Preliminaryly, in the instant disposition imposing global income tax, the acquisition value of the portion at issue is KRW 1.28 billion was recognized as KRW 1.28 billion. However, as the Plaintiff et al. additionally disbursed KRW 220 million to cancel the right to collateral security established on the instant multi-household housing site, the acquisition value should be increased as above, or the above expenses for cancelling the collateral security should be included in the necessary expenses.

○ Written judgment of the first instance court shall be executed by cutting the two to ten pages as follows.

A) The Plaintiff asserts that the above KRW 1.28 billion, which was recognized as the acquisition value of the key part of the issue, should be added to the acquisition value or recognized as necessary expenses, since the Plaintiff et al. additionally disbursed to cancel the right to collateral security under the name of the seller. However, the above assertion cannot be accepted for the following reasons.

① The Plaintiff, etc. initially acquired 30 households of the instant multi-household in the instant case at KRW 1.92 billion and acquired only 20 households among them. According to the foregoing, the sales price for the key portion under the instant sales contract is KRW 1.28 billion (i.e., KRW 1.., KRW 1.920 million x 20/30 households) when calculated according to its ratio. In the disposition imposing global income tax in the instant case, deeming the acquisition price for the key portion as KRW 1.28 billion x 20 million x 20/300 , based on the foregoing calculation. In the instant disposition imposing global income tax in the instant case, the Plaintiff, etc. asserted that the acquisition price was KRW 1.28 billion , if the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit.

② Article 4 of the sales contract provides that “The seller shall pay the debts and taxes related to the above real estate as of the date of the remainder payment.” Thus, according to the contents of the above contract, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff, etc. take over the collateral obligation that the seller bears. The testimony of the first instance witness KimA is the same purport. Thus, even if the Plaintiff, etc. directly pays the secured obligation to the Korea Credit Union, which is a collateral security right, the amount equivalent to the payment of the purchase price, should be limited to the amount within the limit of KRW 1.288 million of the above purchase price. The excess payment cannot be deemed as the payment of the purchase price, and it is recognized as a third party’s subrogation, and thus, it cannot be added to the acquisition price, and it cannot be deemed as necessary expenses because the Plaintiff, etc. should claim for reimbursement against the seller.

③ The Plaintiff et al. asserted that the secured debt was repaid in excess of KRW 1.28 million. 2. 5 billion. According to the evidence No. 11 (Evidence No. 12) of this BB’s agent, the amount was KRW 1.28,00,000,000 and KRW 2. 05,000,000,000,000,000 won were 2. 5,000 won, 2. 05,000 won, 1. 5,000 won, 2. 05,000 won, 2. 05,00 won, 1. 5,000 won, 2. 5,000 won, 205,00 won, 2. 5,000 won, 205,00 won, 2. 5,000 won, 205,000 won, 205,000 won.

B) The Plaintiff asserts that the employee’s allowance, allowance for sales in lots, and attorney’s fee paid in relation to the key part should be additionally included in the necessary expenses. However, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit, on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s testimony of part of the witness KimA of the first instance trial alone is insufficient to recognize whether the Plaintiff actually paid the aforementioned expenses, and the specific amount thereof, and there is no other evidence to recognize otherwise (Article 2 of the special terms and conditions of the sales contract, that the owner of the building should pay the construction cost in accordance with the construction permit).

2. Conclusion

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