Seoul Administrative Court 2015Gudan50811 ( October 20, 2015)

The submission of the certificate of approval is presumed to have been prepared as the content of the contract between the parties, except in special circumstances.

The sales contract (as in the judgment of the court of first instance) submitted shall be the total of three copies and the sales price are different, respectively, and it shall not be determined whether a contract is a genuine contract, and it shall not be recognized as a true contract due to the lack of consistency in arguments.

Article 96 of the Income Tax Act

Revocation of disposition imposing capital gains tax

○ ○

Head of Nowon Tax Office

October 20, 2015

November 17, 2016

December 15, 2016

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 imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 137,933,040 against the Plaintiff on April 1, 2014 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of some contents as follows. Thus, it is accepted by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the

Parts to be added

○ The following shall be added to the fourth sentence below the judgment of the first instance.

④ In light of the fact that ○○○○○ stated that the actual transfer value of the instant real estate was 1.95 million won at the time of the trial, and that 2.5 billion won was due to the Plaintiff’s request in order to obtain a large number of loans. However, ○○○ initially prepared and issued a confirmation document stating that the transfer value of the instant real estate was 1.7 billion won, and that the transfer value under the seal of approval agreement on the instant real estate written between the Plaintiff and ○○○○ is indicated as 2.5 billion won, the said statement made by ○○○○ was inconsistent and not supported by objective data such as financial transaction details (the Plaintiff’s statement attached to the preparatory document as of August 25, 2015 cannot be said to be objective data because there are many cases where it cannot be said that the Plaintiff was actually paid by ○○○○○○○.

2. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is groundless.