The disposition of this case in which the purchase price of 0 billion won is not a profit earned by the plaintiff, and only the transfer of ownership is made later.

The Plaintiff’s total sale price is KRW 0 billion, and the Plaintiff’s disposition on the premise that the Plaintiff took advantage of KRW 00,000,000, on the grounds that no money was paid for any cause, such as delayed payment of damages for delay of transfer of ownership or interest, etc., is unlawful, and thus, the Plaintiff’s disposition on the premise

Article 16 (1) 11 of the Income Tax Act

Seoul High Court-2014Nu-47206

*

@@세무서장

National Flag

September 25, 2014

Mar. 20, 2014

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

3. The main text of the judgment of the court of first instance was modified by the reduction of claims in the trial as follows. On March 15, 2013, the part that exceeds KRW 00,000,000 among the corrective disposition of KRW 00,000 for global income tax for the year 2009 that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on March 15, 201 shall be revoked.

Defendant’s correction office of KRW 000,000,000 for global income tax for the year 2009 owed to the Plaintiff on March 15, 2013

The part exceeding KRW 00,00,000 among the parts shall be revoked (the plaintiff shall be subject to such disposition in the trial as above).

In addition, the claim was corrected and reduced.

Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reason why the court's reasoning is stated in this decision is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the dismissal of part of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in the following Paragraph (2). Thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

A. On April 8, 2013, the first instance court's second 20 to 21, "it stated that the Plaintiff had no other interest rate of KRW 00,00,000 for global income tax for 207 and KRW 00,000 for global income tax for 209, respectively." The portion of " shall be revised and notified to the Plaintiff on March 15, 2013, which was 00,000 for global income tax for 2007 and global income tax for 00,000 for 00,000 won for 100,000 won for 200,000,000 won for 00,000 won for 10,000,000 won for 20,000 won for 10,000,000 won for 3.0,000,000 won for 14,000,000 won for 0,000.

Therefore, among the disposition of this case, the part on the premise that the Plaintiff acquired interest of KRW 00,000,000 as interest on KRW 4000,000 until the time of the registration of ownership transfer is illegal. The above part on the premise that the Plaintiff acquired the interest of KRW 00,000 as interest, excluding the Plaintiff’s global income accrued in 2009 and the Plaintiff’s legitimate global income tax accrued in 2009 is re-calculated with the Plaintiff’s legitimate global income tax accrued in 2009 (=the Defendant’s initially notified tax amount of KRW 00,000,000 - the Defendant’s global income tax amount of KRW 00,000,000 as global income tax amount of KRW 00,000,00 may be acknowledged in full view of the entries in the evidence No. 4 and the purport of the entire pleading

Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case seeking revocation of the part exceeding the above KRW 00,000,000 among the disposition of this case is with merit.

3. Conclusion

If so, the defendant's appeal is dismissed due to the lack of reason (However, Article 1 of the decision of the court of first instance was changed by the reduction of the plaintiff's claim in the court of first instance as Paragraph 3 of the decision).