Suwon District Court 2012Guhap10285 (27 March 27, 2013)

Cho High Court Decision 2008west 4184 (Law No. 96.03)

The evidential materials of the Housing Repair Corporation, etc. shall not be deemed necessary expenses because they are insufficient;

Although a tax invoice is issued only after the lapse of at least seven months after the completion of the construction work, it can not be deemed necessary expenses due to the fact that the issuance of the tax invoice is considerably exceptional, even though the construction work is stated that the construction cost was paid in cash or by cashier's checks after being paid in cash or by cashier's checks.

Article 97 of the Income Tax Act

2013Nu11699 Revocation of disposition to impose capital gains tax

United Kingdom A

port of origin

Suwon District Court Decision 2012Guhap10285 Decided March 27, 2013

January 24, 2014

February 7, 2014

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's imposition of the capital gains tax for the plaintiff on July 7, 201 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for this decision are as follows: (a) on May 27, 2008, No. 6, May 27, 2008, and (b) on May 27, 2009, May 27, 2009; and (c) on the part of the plaintiff, the judgment of the court of first instance is recorded in addition to addition of the judgment as follows.

2. The addition;

The plaintiff argued that the construction cost of this case was changed by additionally recognizing it as necessary expenses, but even if the plaintiff alleged that the construction cost of this case was erroneous in the previous process of remodeling work, such as the plaintiff's assertion, even if the plaintiff alleged that the construction cost of this case was erroneous in the previous process of remodeling work, the evidence submitted by the court of first instance and the trial alone is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff spent the construction cost of this case as the remodeling work of this case for the housing of this case, since May 2008 to March 2009, since the first remodeling work for the housing of this case was completed around May 2008 due to the previous mistake, and there was no other evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff spent the construction cost of this case as the remodeling work of this case for the housing of this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.