If the brokerage commission for the acquisition of real estate is more than that prescribed by the Municipal Ordinance of the City, the amount of the commission to be deducted from the necessary expenses.

Even if the brokerage commission for the acquisition of real estate is more than the brokerage commission for 0.8% as determined by the Ordinance of the Seoul Metropolitan Government, the deduction of necessary expenses shall be based on the amount actually paid, except in extenuating circumstances.

Articles 7 and 45 of the Income Tax Act

Plaintiff

Head of Suwon Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 84Gu433 delivered on March 26, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant's ground of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 are collected together.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below collected evidences and purchased the real estate listed in the separate list 1,24,695 won from the Korea Exchange Bank on August 25, 1982 with Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2, together with the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, as the above non-party 2 sold the real estate listed in the separate list 1,24,695 won to the non-party 3 without the consent of the plaintiff and the non-party 1, who is co-owner, paid KRW 4,00,000 with the introduction cost of KRW 1,00,000,000, and the plaintiff and the above non-party 1 paid KRW 13,764,591 as acquisition tax following the acquisition of the real estate of this case and KRW 20,646,889 as defense tax, and the plaintiff and the non-party 1 sold the real estate to the non-party 2, 1983 as 00,0000 of the evidence.

The plaintiff and the above non-party 1,00,000 won paid by the plaintiff and the above non-party 2 are not the amount paid again to acquire the shares of the non-party 2, but the amount paid as the price for withdrawing the above non-party 2 as a joint purchaser or the amount paid as compensation for damages. However, it would be wrong to determine that it is the amount of acquisition. However, how to understand the payment of the above amount, the plaintiff and the above non-party 1 would ultimately result in acquiring the shares of the non-party 2, who is a joint purchaser, again acquiring the shares of the non-party 2's arbitrary disposition, and the plaintiff and the above non-party 2 already lost their status as co-owners by arbitrarily disposing of their shares and did not have any reason to impose liability for damages due to default or tort (the above responsibility is, rather, to the above non-party 2 by arbitrarily disposing of their shares without the consent of the plaintiff et al., which is a fact-finding court's discretionary decision without any justifiable reasons, and thus, cannot be accepted.

In addition, the issue is that the introduction fee of the original judgment is too large as necessary expenses of KRW 20,00,000. However, even if more than the brokerage fee of KRW 0.8% as stipulated in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance, the deduction of necessary expenses should be based on the actual amount paid, barring special circumstances, and even if it is reasonable in light of the principle of substantial taxation, it cannot be accepted as an independent opinion.

Ultimately, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Park Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)