Chuncheon District Court 2007Guhap2027 ( October 25, 2009)

Examination Income 2007-0056 (29 August 2007)

Appropriateness of the assertion that no income accrued from the transfer of land due to the non-performance of the special agreement

Each total revenue for the year in which the purchase price is received from the transferee of the land and the ownership is transferred shall be calculated, and even if it is anticipated that additional expenses are incurred for the construction of roads and the change of land category, which are matters under a special agreement in the future, they shall not be deducted as necessary expenses unless they have

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

○ Kim

Chuncheon Director of the Tax Office

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 shall revoke the disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 97,051,940 on January 5, 2007 against the plaintiff on January 5, 2007 and global income tax of KRW 33,283,910 on global income for the year 2005.

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 following cases. Thus, this court’s explanation is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

A. From 3th to 4th ¥§ 9 of the judgment of the court of first instance (the part concerning the plaintiff's assertion) are as follows.

1) From the Plaintiff’s total revenue amount, the sum of KRW 636,11,300 (i.e., brokerage commission of KRW 515,024,00 + Other expenses of KRW 121,087,300 + even based on the Plaintiff’s assertion itself, the Plaintiff’s “614,624,000 won” of KRW 636,111,30, and “99,60,000” of KRW 121,07,30, respectively, should be additionally recognized as necessary expenses for each pertinent year.

(a)the brokerage commission;

A total of KRW 253,540,000, which the Plaintiff paid to the branchA, KimB, and KimCC in connection with the ○○ land, shall be deemed as necessary expenses for global income tax for the year 2004, the total of KRW 172,810,00,000, which was paid to the branchA, Park Dog-ri land in relation to the global income tax, and the brokerage commission paid to ParkE, Park Dog-do, and Park Dog-ri in relation to the △△ land, and the total of KRW 88,674,00,000, which was paid to the branchA, Park Dog-ri, and △

B) Expenses related to ○○ land

121,087,300 won in aggregate of the following expenses related to land shall be deducted as necessary expenses for global income tax in 2004 or 2005:

2) The Plaintiff’s return amounting to KRW 23,582,970 (23,439,774, which appears to be a clerical error in the calculation) of the transfer income tax paid in relation to the instant business should be deducted from the global income tax of the instant case.

B. Part VI through VII of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows. Part VI through VII of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows.

1) Necessary expenses

(a)the brokerage commission;

According to the evidence Nos. 6-1, 2, and 3, as alleged by the Plaintiff, KRW 253,540,000, total of opening fees among the land-related to ○○○○○○, as alleged by the Plaintiff, can be recognized as having been deducted from the expenses already reflected in the global income tax for 2005, as the necessary expenses for global income tax, the total of KRW 172,810,00,000, total of brokerage fees related to the land-related to △△△△△△, as well as KRW 88,674,00,00, total of brokerage fees related to the land-related to △△△△,

B) Expenses related to ○○ land

The plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit for the following reasons.

(1) (No. 4) On December 17, 2004, the part of the cancellation cost of provisional registration KRW 1,600,000 was already deducted as necessary expenses concerning global income tax for the year 2004, according to the entry in the evidence No. 5-3.

(2) (No. 6) On September 14, 2005, the portion of KRW 9,112,300, after paying the transfer income tax on September 14, 2005, for which the provisional attachment was cancelled, is paid the Plaintiff’s delinquent amount of transfer income tax, and there is no room

(3) (No. 9 to 17) On December 22, 2005, the part of the cost of surveying the construction of housing lots of KRW 20,00,000 for the construction of housing lots of KRW 20,00 for the project of this case is considered expenses related to the project of this case, and even if the cost of the project of this case is related to the project of this case for domestic affairs, according to the overall purport of entry and arguments in evidence No. 28-117, the payment date is recognized to have been March 10, 206, and according to each entry in evidence No. 28-28, No. 38, No. 7-4, each payment date is recognized to have been 2006. Thus, this part of the cost cannot be considered as necessary expenses for global income tax of KRW 204 and 2005.

(4) (No. 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and 8) With respect to the remainder of the expenses except for the above parts, the entries of No. 3 and No. 28-6, 38, 41, and 73 are insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff spent the remainder of the expenses related to the instant company business, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

2) Transfer income tax reported amount

According to the evidence Nos. 1-2 and 13 through 16, the transfer income tax of 4,571,560 won paid on February 28, 2006, out of the amount claimed by the Plaintiff, was not payable at the time of the instant disposition, and the remainder of 19,01,410 won can be acknowledged as having been already deducted as already paid tax at the time of imposing global income tax on ParkG and Park H as transfer income tax on the remainder of 19,01,410 won. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.