Early High Court Decision 201J 1630 ( October 14, 2011)

It is not recognized that the right of sale was transferred, and that the passbook was transferred.

In light of the fact that the plaintiff stated as the transferor of the right of sale in the contract for the supply of the right of sale, the broker of the right of sale has mediated the plaintiff and testified that the sale of the passbook at the time of brokerage was not made available for the plaintiff, it is difficult to recognize that the right of sale was transferred and that the passbook was sold.

Article 94 of the Income Tax Act

2011Gudan2260 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

LAA

Head of Namyang District Tax Office

March 19, 2012

on January 16, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 000 on April 12, 2011 against the Plaintiff is revoked (for example, “No. 15, 2011” stated in the written complaint appears to be a clerical error in April 12, 201).

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 1, 2002, the Plaintiff entered into a contract (hereinafter “instant apartment”) with the terms that the Plaintiff would be supplied with the 000-dong BB00, 000 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) from the BB Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

B. On January 10, 2003, the Plaintiff transferred the instant sales right to KimCC, and on January 13, 2003, upon filing a preliminary return of capital gains tax on the transfer of the said sales right, the Plaintiff calculated capital gains tax (the premium on the said sales right) as KRW 000, and paid KRW 000.

C. On April 12, 2011, the Defendant determined and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 000 of the transfer income tax reverted to the year 2003 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) as a result of the Plaintiff’s tax investigation.

D. On April 25, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the instant disposition, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the said appeal on June 14, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul-1 to 3, 5 to 8 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff merely sold an offer passbook under the Plaintiff’s name at KRW 000 through the brokerage of a licensed real estate agent, and did not sell the instant sales slip. The instant disposition based on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

On the other hand, the above evidence and evidence Nos. 4-1 and 2, and the testimony of the witness KimD added the whole purport of the pleading, i.e., the supply contract (Evidence No. 2) for the apartment of this case, i.e., the plaintiff as to the right to sell the apartment of this case, i.e., the plaintiff's right to sell the apartment of this case, i., the KimCC on Jan. 10, 2003, i.e., the Kim E, the right to sell the apartment of this case, and ii) on May 30, 203, i.e., the plaintiff's right to sell the apartment of this case, after the transfer of the apartment of this case, i.e., the plaintiff's under-report of transfer income tax was made, and 3) the defendant was notified by the head of Gangnam Tax Office that the actual transaction value of the right to sell this case was confirmed, and the plaintiff's offer of this case was not accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so ordered as per Disposition.

partnership.