Incheon District Court-2016-Gu 52976 ( February 10, 2017)

It constitutes a resale in which a person who is aware of the double sale by a former owner and received the purchase price again is determined by re-determination.

(As in the judgment of the court of first instance, it is reasonable to view that the previous owner transferred the real estate to a third party without making the registration of ownership transfer from the previous owner, and then recovering the purchase price received from the previous owner to the third party, and further receiving the purchase price re-determined with the third party is practically unregistered.

Article 88 (Definition of Transfer) of Income Tax Act

2017Nu39039 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax, etc.

GabO

O Head of the tax office and one other

Incheon District Court Decision 2016Guhap52976 Decided February 10, 2017

September 13, 2017

September 27, 2017

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. The disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of 295,890,480 won (including additional tax) for the plaintiff on December 1, 2015 against the plaintiff on December 1, 2015, and the disposition of collection of the resident tax (the portion of capital gains tax) for the income tax of 2007 against the plaintiff on January 13, 2016 is revoked (the local income tax was amended by Act No. 9924, Jan. 1, 2010; the tax item is changed from the "resident tax to the "local income tax to be subject to income tax" to the "local income tax to be subject to income tax" under the laws and regulations at the time when the tax liability becomes effective. The plaintiff reduced part of the amount of the resident tax tax to be imposed for the year 2007).

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the partial revision of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the

The "Local Income Tax" of 3rd 20, 21, 4th 2, 3, 4, 7th 3 through 9, 11th 3 through 9, 16, 17th 4th 4th 2th 3th 3th 3th 4th 3th 3th 4th 3th 3th 3th 3th 3th 3th 200

○ At the bottom of the 6th page, the following shall be added:

Even if the Plaintiff filed an application for provisional seizure of real estate against OO, etc. as the right to claim compensation for the preserved claim against OO, etc., the sales price of the land was set at KRW 20 million per square year between OO construction, etc., and thereafter assessed the difference of KRW 1768 million excluding the sales price received by OO, etc. from OO construction, etc. as the unpaid sales price, and received KRW 176 million from the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff can be deemed to have received the payment under the sales contract rather than the compensation for damages arising from illegal acts from OO construction, etc.

From 7 side to 00, "I have made an unregistered pre-sale agreement," "I have been made an unregistered pre-sale agreement, and I have not complied with the request for acceptance of ownership transfer registration procedure for several times."

○ 8 pages 2 of "OO, etc. will be deleted in the future, such as O construction."

○ 9. The following shall be added to the last 9 pages "the fact that it had been concluded":

⑤ The Plaintiff received and delivered the unpaid difference of KRW 176 million from Oconstruction, etc. to the account of OO, other than the Plaintiff’s account.

2. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.