Seoul Administrative Court 201Gudan20638 ( November 09, 2012)

Seocho 2010west 1302 ( October 25, 2015)

It is reasonable to calculate capital gains tax according to the substance and substance of the transfer of land after exchange.

In light of the fact that transfer income tax and various transaction costs are generated through land exchange transactions and they do not gain any profit, so it is difficult to understand the purpose of exchange transactions without premised on the avoidance of transfer income tax from the transfer of each land in the future, etc., the imposition disposition that deemed the transfer of land as the owner before the exchange contract is lawful.

2012Nu36950 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

apAA et al.

Samsung Head of Samsung Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2011Gudan20638 decided November 9, 2012

June 5, 2013

July 3, 2013

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant's imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 on March 10, 2010 and the imposition of KRW 000 on the income tax of KRW 000 on March 10, 208, which was made against the plaintiff leapA on March 10, 208, shall be revoked.

1. cite the judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's ruling is as follows, and the judgment on the plaintiffs' arguments is added in the following paragraphs, and therefore, it is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The "000" written in the transfer value column of the contract No. 2 in the order of the contract No. 1 in the third table is '00'.

○ Article 100, Paragraph 3, which sets forth 7th below the 7th day, as "Article 100, Paragraph 2."

○ 7 pages 4, â…………………………… â â â â â â â â â â â â â â â âââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââ

2. Additional determination

The Plaintiffs asserts that the instant disposition that denied land exchange transaction between the Plaintiffs was unlawful. However, the Plaintiffs asserted that the instant disposition that denied land exchange transaction between the Plaintiffs was unlawful. However, since transfer income tax and various transaction costs are incurred pursuant to land exchange transaction between the Plaintiffs, and thus, it does not mean that Plaintiff KimB gains any profit, the Plaintiffs cannot understand the purpose of exchange transaction between the Plaintiffs without premised on the avoidance of transfer income tax from the transfer of each of the instant land. In view of the fact that each of the instant land and buildings were transferred en bloc, and that the Plaintiffs were transferred en bloc by applying Article 14(3) or (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the instant disposition that deemed that the Plaintiffs transferred each of the instant land and buildings, as the former owner of the exchange contract, to the former PP by applying Article 14(3) or (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, is lawful (the Plaintiff’s land exchange transaction between the Plaintiffs constitutes the most difficult exchange transaction as it involved in the exchange transaction for the purpose of partially avoiding transfer income tax

3. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.