Plaintiff (Law Firm Barun, Attorneys Choi Young-young et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Head of the tax office;

December 16, 2015

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2014Gudan5505 decided July 24, 2015

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 defendant shall revoke the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 178,763,750 against the plaintiff on December 3, 2013.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court's explanation on this case is as follows: Gap evidence additionally submitted at the court of first instance, which is insufficient to recognize the plaintiff's assertion, and Gap evidence Nos. 26, 27-1, 2, and 28, which is insufficient to recognize the plaintiff's assertion, and the court's reasoning for the court of first instance is the same with the reasoning for the court of first instance except for the following cases with the "non-existence of No. 10" as stated in No. 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8

“I, the Plaintiff asserted that Nonparty 1 (the Nonparty: the Nonparty) was the main cause for the depression, but Nonparty 1 registered as a rental business operator of rental housing located in Busan around May 22, 2008 after four months from the divorce report, and thus, it is difficult to accept such assertion.”

2. Conclusion

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

Judges Sung Pung-tae (Presiding Judge)