Suwon District Court-2016-Gu Group-1688 (2017.03.03)

The acquisition value of the real estate of this case is legitimate, which is converted and applied in an unclear manner.

The acquisition value of the real estate of this case is legitimate, which is converted and applied in an unclear manner.

Article 97 (Calculation of Necessary Expenses in Transfer Income)

Seoul High Court-2017-Nu-41872 Revocation of the rectification of capital gains tax

AA

O Head of tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2016Gudan1688 Decided March 3, 2017

on October 29, 2017

on September 19, 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. The defendant's refusal to correct the transfer income tax for the plaintiff on June 30, 2015 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the dismissal of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this Court shall accept it in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

○ From 12th to 12th to 3th to 4th to 12th to 12th to 3th to 12th to 2th to 2th to 2

(2) The Plaintiff asserted that the actual purchase price of the instant real estate was KRW 00 billion and submitted as evidence the evidence that the actual purchase price of the instant real estate was KRW 4 and 6 (a copy of a sales contract), Gap evidence No. 4 and 5 (a statement of each head of each passbook), Gap evidence No. 7-1, and Gap evidence No. 14-1 (a statement of fact). However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence as well as the testimony of JJ of the first instance court, the testimony of JJ of the witness of the first instance court, Y's testimony of the witness of the first instance court, and Y's entire arguments, the instant disposition is legitimate, since the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone does not recognize the actual purchase price of the instant real estate and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

First, after the plaintiff filed a judgment with the Tax Tribunal, the plaintiff submitted the evidence of this case, which is a copy of the sales contract, while the plaintiff found the evidence of this case. However, the seller YY stated that the content of Gap's No. 2 and the signature and seal of Gap's No. 2 are not memory, and that the JJ among the individuals stated that it cannot memory whether YY was signed and sealed directly in its original form, and that the evidence No. 2 of this case is inappropriate as it is not admitted as evidence.

2. Conclusion

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