District Court-2016-Gu Group-5066 (No. 25, 2017)

Examination-2016-008 (No. 14, 2016)

Whether expenses incurred in expanding and remodeling real estate over several occasions after its acquisition are included in the necessary expenses.

The taxpayer is responsible to prove the necessary expenses incurred in expanding and remodeling real estate over several occasions after its acquisition.

Income Tax Act

2017Nu3845 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

CHAPTER AA

AA Head of the Tax Office

on 19, 2017

on October 16, 2017

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

A. Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the Defendant’s instant lawsuit seeking revocation of the AAA from among the disposition imposing capital gains tax on the Plaintiff in December 1, 2015, reverted to the Plaintiff in 2013 shall be dismissed.

B. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke the disposition of imposition of the capital gains tax for the plaintiff on December 1, 2015, which reverts to the plaintiff on December 1, 2015.

1. Quotation, etc. of judgment in the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the modification of the pertinent part of the judgment of the first instance as follows 2. Thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Revised parts

○ 2. Removal of the part of 9 pages 2.

○ 2, 2, 15 pages “the instant disposition” deleted

○ 2 16 pages 16 c. "(c)" is amended to "C (hereinafter referred to as "the Disposition in this case") the remaining part after correction of the imposition of transfer tax."

○ 2. 19 pages 19

“2. Whether a lawsuit seeking revocation of the corrected portion is legitimate or not, of the instant lawsuit, the part seeking revocation of the Defendant’s revised reduction of the AAA, is unlawful, since the Defendant’s revised reduction did not have the object thereof.”

○ 20 2. To revise “2.” to “3.”

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the lawsuit in this case seeking revocation of the corrected part is unlawful, and thus, the remaining claims of the plaintiff shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the first instance court which partially changed the conclusion is unfair, and it is modified as per Disposition 1.