Seoul Administrative Court 2012Gudan6721, 2012)

Seocho 201J 2277 ( October 20, 2012)

Since the amount of disposition is legally calculated in accordance with statutes, the disposition cannot be deemed unlawful because it is too harsh.

It is difficult to view that there is a legitimate reason for exemption from penalty tax, as long as the amount of disposition is legally calculated in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations, in light of the circumstances where the convenience of the purchaser is recognized as one household and the purchaser is temporarily not considered as two house owners, etc. under the elderly conditions that the purchaser is aware of the relevant laws and regulations.

2012누27833 양도소득세부과처분취솝

KimA

Head of Seodaemun Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Gudan6721 decided August 22, 2012

February 27, 2013

March 20, 2013

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 000 won on June 9, 201 that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on June 9, 201 shall be revoked.

1. cite the judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for the judgment of this court are as follows, and the plaintiff added new arguments and judgments to them in the following paragraphs are as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, and they are cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Pursuant to the contract date and the contract terms of the apartment of this case (00 won) on the 5th table, the contract amount of 000 won and 000 won in the middle of the contract amount shall be 000 won and 000 won in the middle of the contract amount.

The amount of capital gains tax calculated as stated above, ", as the amount of capital gains tax calculated as stated above, is within the scope of a legitimate tax amount," is regarded as "the amount of capital gains tax calculated as stated above (as long as Article 104 (1) 2-5 or 2-6 of the former Income Tax Act is applied, and Article 95 (2) of the former Income Tax Act does not apply to special long-term holding deduction provisions)".

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment as to the assertion

The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the instant disposition, including additional tax, is excessively harsh and unlawful, considering the circumstances that the Plaintiff’s convenience is considered as a temporary single household’s second house owner under the conditions newly known and elderly in this court. However, as seen earlier, as long as the amount of the instant disposition was legally calculated in accordance with the relevant statutes, and the Plaintiff’s demand alone does not constitute an unlawful act against the Plaintiff, and it is difficult to deem that there are justifiable grounds that the Plaintiff could not charge the Plaintiff with a breach of duty to report and pay capital gains tax. This part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is difficult.

3. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.