logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2017.11.08 2017구단58314
양도소득세부과처분취소
Text

1. The Defendant’s transfer income tax amounting to KRW 128,099,910 (including additional tax) for the Plaintiff on May 9, 2016.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 1, 200, the Plaintiff, jointly with the Plaintiff’s mother B, acquired from C, on August 1, 2000, a total of 882 square meters of land D and three buildings, 491.93 square meters (house 96.78 square meters in a warehouse, 197.6 square meters in a warehouse, 197.5 square meters in a house), 1/2 shares (42 square meters in land was divided into E on May 28, 2008, and the house was destroyed on June 23, 2006; hereinafter “instant real estate”). On December 3, 2010, the Plaintiff received 1/2 shares in the instant real estate from B, among the instant real estate.

B. On May 2, 2014, when the Plaintiff transferred the instant real estate to the Defendant on July 31, 2014, the Plaintiff calculated the acquisition value of the instant real estate as KRW 599,468,589 (the Plaintiff’s shares, among the instant real estate, KRW 423,273,69, and KRW 176,194,890, based on the supplementary assessment method prescribed by the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act), and reported and paid the transfer income tax.

C. However, as a result of the Defendant’s tax investigation of capital gains tax on the Plaintiff from February 15, 2016 to March 5, 2016, the Defendant confirmed that C reported the transfer value of the instant real estate to the head of the competent tax office at the time of filing the tax base of capital gains tax to KRW 80,000,000, and issued a disposition imposing capital gains tax (including additional tax) on the Plaintiff on May 9, 2016 on the premise that the acquisition value of the instant real estate was KRW 80,000,000.

On July 26, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on December 13, 2016 on the instant disposition, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on March 2, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 17, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful; and

arrow