Suwon District Court-2018-Gu Group-6090 (No. 21, 2018)

Revocation of disposition imposing capital gains tax

The plaintiff's assertion that the registration of this case is null and void due to forgery and omission, and it cannot be viewed as a transfer subject to capital gains tax, and it is merely a provisional registration of establishment of security cannot be accepted.

The contents of the judgment are the same as attachment.

Article 98 of the Income Tax Act

2018Nu6885 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

AA

BB Director of the Tax Office

on 15, 2019

on October 29, 2019

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 KRW 342,825,850 (including additional tax) for the Plaintiff on February 13, 2017 by the Defendant shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the judgment of the court in this case shall be as follows:

Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of

This shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence.

○ 6th written judgment of the first instance court, 6th 9th 9th 'Woo' added the following to 1-1th 'each week':

1-1) Where litigation documents have been served with a false address by stating the other party's false address and the other party who is not the other party has received the documents, and thereby the judgment in favor of the person who has won the lawsuit has been rendered in the form of confession, and the original copy of the judgment has also been sent to the false address, the service of the judgment on the other party is unlawful and invalid. As such, the other party may file an appeal against it in a state where the original copy of the judgment has not been served, and where the registration of transfer of ownership or cancellation has been made in accordance with the above judgment of fraud, the other party may seek the cancellation of the registration as a separate lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da41010, May 9, 1995).

○ At the bottom of the 6th judgment of the first instance court, 6 o’s '6 o’ (except for each part; hereinafter the same shall apply)’

C. The following shall be added:

(A) Although the Plaintiff asserts that a civil lawsuit, etc. is not filed against DD on the ground that the economic leisure power to file another lawsuit remains, considering that the most effective way to relieve the Plaintiff’s rights is to cancel the registration of this case through a civil lawsuit against DD, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is not easily acceptable).

○ At the bottom of the 6th judgment of the first instance court, even if not, the following shall be added:

(A) the decision in lieu of the above conciliation has not become final and conclusive as alleged by the Plaintiff.

The same shall apply to any person)

○ Judgment of the first instance court 7 - 2 - 5 - on the one hand, 'it is difficult to do so', and the parts are written as follows:

Meanwhile, when the borrower promises to transfer other property rights in lieu of the borrowed object with respect to the return of the borrowed object, the Act on Security, etc. of Provisional Registration, etc. applies only to a security contract, the value of which is invalidated pursuant to Article 608 of the Civil Act, and provisional registration or transfer registration made for the purpose of the security, in excess of the aggregate of the borrowed amount and the interest attached thereto (Articles 1 and 2 subparag. 1 of the Provisional Registration Security Act). Since there is no evidence to prove that the value of the object at the time of the promise to sell and purchase constitutes a security contract the validity of which is invalidated pursuant to Article 608 of the Civil Act in excess of the aggregate of the principal and interest on the borrowed object, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the registration of this case is null and void on the ground that

In addition, 'the transfer value of the plaintiff and CCC is not separately distinguished from the above agreement', 'the fact that '3 acts are under 8 side of the judgment of the first instance court,' is added to the above agreement.

2. Conclusion

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