Seoul Administrative Court 2013Gudan53588 (Law No. 19, 2014)

Seocho 2013 Schedules1022 (Law No. 16, 2013)

The disposition imposed by applying the exclusion period of 10 years is reasonable because the transfer income tax was omitted due to a double contract.

Since the legal act of a delegated agent or broker shall belong to the principal, any disposition imposed by applying the exclusion period for imposition of ten years shall be deemed to have been omitted by a false contract.

Article 96 of the Income Tax Act

2014Nu64911 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

ChoiA et al. 1

Jeju Tax Office et al. 1

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2013Gudan53588 decided August 19, 2014

May 20, 2015

June 17, 2015

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The decision of the first instance court shall be revoked. The imposition of OOO(including additional taxOO) for the transfer income tax of 2002 that the head of the Jeju District Tax Office rendered to the Plaintiff LA on December 6, 2012, and the imposition of OO(including additional taxO) for the transfer income tax of 2002 that the head of the defendant DOO(including additional taxO) made to the Plaintiff LB on December 3, 2012 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as follows: (a) the court of first instance has dismissed the following matters among the judgments of the court of first instance; and (b) the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the court of first instance, and thus, (c) Article 8 (2) of

○ 7 pages 2, 2002, "O. 4, 2002" is "O. 16, 2002", "transfer" of 8 and 9, "as sold", and "as of 9, 2012." respectively, and "as of 2002."

2. Additional determination

Although the transfer value of the instant land is an OO won, the Plaintiffs asserted that the OOO won was received as a broker, KimCC or SouthernD's introduction fee, and that it was disbursed as necessary expenses. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff's assertion (as a result of the court's order to submit each financial transaction information, there is no trace of accepting a large amount of introduction fees in the financial transaction of KimCC and SouthernD at the time of the transfer of the instant land). Rather, it is difficult to easily accept the Plaintiffs' assertion that the OO won would pay an excessively large amount compared to the transfer price and the amount of such higher ratio and the amount as the introduction fee. The Plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.