logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2013.12.24 2012구합34068
취득세부과처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Regarding the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B apartment 136 Dong 502 (hereinafter “instant apartment”), the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the Plaintiff C on March 2, 2005, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of D on July 2009, and C paid KRW 8,250,000 on March 25, 2005.

B. On September 9, 2009, C declared that, “C purchased the instant apartment from E and F to KRW 375,000,000,000, and transferred D the instant apartment in KRW 559,000,000, it did not have capital gains tax to be paid for one house owner for one household (at least three years of possession, at least two years of residence period).”

C. However, as a result of analyzing the acquisition fund and the transfer price of the instant apartment, the director of the Gangseo-gu Tax Office imposed KRW 64,984,830 on the Plaintiff on February 14, 201, and notified the Defendant of the title trust suspicion against the Plaintiff at the same time.

Accordingly, on July 16, 2012, the defendant imposed acquisition tax of KRW 13,50,000 on the plaintiff and KRW 14,550,000 on the plaintiff, including special rural development tax of KRW 1,050,000.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, Eul’s evidence Nos. 5 and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The person who actually acquired the instant apartment in question by the Plaintiff’s assertion is C, and such C has already paid acquisition tax on March 25, 2005.

Therefore, even though the Plaintiff did not hold title trust to C after acquiring the apartment of this case, the disposition of this case, which was taken on the premise that the Plaintiff actually acquired the apartment of this case, is unlawful as it imposes acquisition tax on two persons on one real estate.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. (1) The facts of recognition are between E, F and C with respect to the instant apartment.

arrow