Suwon District Court-2014-Gu Group-2342 (Law No. 19, 2015)

(as in the judgment of the first instance court) The ratio of profit sharing or the ratio of loss sharing cannot be deemed as the contract of the same business.

(The same as the judgment of the court of first instance) an agreement was made to pay a fixed amount of land without a profit distribution ratio, and there is no other reason to view the business as a partnership, and the transaction of land is not a partnership agreement

Article 94 of the Income Tax Act: Scope of Capital Gains

2015Nu57828 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

○ ○

○ Head of tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2014Gudan2342 Decided August 19, 2015

2016.05.11

2016.06.01

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 207,315,670 against the Plaintiff on July 8, 2013 by the Defendant shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

This court's reasoning is identical to the judgment of the court of first instance except for partial contents 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 Civil Procedure Act.

○ 4 16 pages 16. The following shall be added:

○ The Plaintiff filed an application for a building permit on November 20, 2008 and obtained the permission, and paid KRW 6 million as design cost of December 26, 2008 and KRW 2 million as design cost of civil engineering and design service cost of the instant building. Even if the Plaintiff purchased an employment insurance and industrial accident compensation insurance under the name of the Plaintiff for the instant building construction, it can be deemed that the time was merely a reason that the Plaintiff independently carried out the construction work irrespective of the instant contract, as the time was transferred to the Plaintiff, regardless of the instant contract, and the purchase of the employment insurance, etc. became the Plaintiff is included in the building permit obtained by designating the owner as the Plaintiff, and the expenses are also agreed to be paid from the Plaintiff regularly, and such circumstances are insufficient to serve as the basis for the agreement to operate the building business.

○ Even if the Plaintiff paid KRW 10 million to Song○○ on January 19, 2010, and KRW 50 million on March 5, 2010, with the cost of outer wall construction of the instant building, the Plaintiff agreed to bear the cost of the initial construction work at fixed ○○○. Ultimately, the Plaintiff paid the said cost, in light of the fact that ○○ ultimately bears it, does not constitute a decisive basis for the agreement on the operation of the instant building.

2. Conclusion

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