Changwon District Court 2013Guhap1711 ( October 25, 2014)

Cho High Court Decision 2012 Deputy 5107 (2013.05)

The disposition of this case which was not deducted because it is difficult to view that the plaintiff actually paid necessary expenses.

Although the Plaintiff asserted that the construction cost, etc. of the instant real estate was paid, necessary expenses are favorable to taxpayers and are located within the territory of taxpayers’ control, and thus, there is a need to prove to taxpayers, but it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff actually paid such necessary expenses due to the lack of objective data to prove that the Plaintiff actually paid such necessary expenses. Thus,

Article 97 of the Income Tax Act as necessary expenses

2014Nu10540 Revocation of disposition of imposing capital gains tax

AA

○ Head of tax office

September 18, 2014

October 16, 2014

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 00,000,000 (principal tax of KRW 00,000,000 + additional tax of KRW 00,00,000) for the year 201 against the Plaintiff on April 1, 2012 is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the plaintiff shall be revoked. The imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 00,000,000 on April 1, 201 by the defendant to the plaintiff on April 1, 2012 shall be revoked.

1. Scope of the ruling of the political party;

In the first instance court, the Plaintiff sought revocation of the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 00,000,000 ( KRW 00,000,000 + additional tax of KRW 00,000) that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on April 1, 2012. The court of first instance accepted the Plaintiff’s claim regarding the disposition of imposition of additional tax of KRW 00,000,000 among the above disposition of imposition, and dismissed the remainder of the claim.

As to this, only the Plaintiff did not appeal or incidental appeal as to the part against which the Plaintiff lost, and the Defendant did not appeal or incidental appeal by the date of the closing of argument in the trial, the scope of judgment in the trial is limited to the part against the Plaintiff, i.e., the disposition imposing capital gains tax on the Plaintiff on April 1, 2012.

2. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's explanation on the instant case is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Conclusion

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