logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2014.06.12 2013구합3277
양도소득세부과처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 25, 1997, the Plaintiff acquired from B of July 25, 1997 the Busan Shipping Daegu C & 210.2 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and registered the ownership transfer under the name of the Plaintiff on October 2, 1997.

B. Since then, the Plaintiff constructed a building on the third floor above the ground level (hereinafter “instant building”) on August 10, 2012. On August 10, 2012, the Plaintiff sold the instant land and the instant building collectively to D KRW 720 million and completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 8, 2012.

C. On December 18, 2012, the Plaintiff scheduled the transfer value of the instant land and building at KRW 720 million, which is the actual transaction value, to the Defendant; the acquisition value of the instant land at KRW 500 million; and the instant building at KRW 188,592,493, calculated the conversion value at KRW 188,592,493; and the transfer income tax at KRW 992,890,00.

Accordingly, the Defendant calculated the acquisition value of the instant land reported by the Plaintiff as KRW 242,510,751 [the acquisition value of the instant land = KRW 242,510,751] [the acquisition value of the instant land = KRW 242,518,492,493] and calculated as KRW 18,59,946,85 won (the conversion value) for the Plaintiff on April 8, 2013, under Articles 97(1)1 and 114(7) of the Income Tax Act, and Article 176-2(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, by using the acquisition value of the instant land as KRW 242,518,258 (the conversion value of the instant land = KRW 242,592,493] and as the actual transaction value at the time of acquisition of the instant land : (i) KRW 59,546,535,120,314,294,294

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) e.

On June 24, 2013, the Plaintiff appealed and requested for adjudication to the Director of the Tax Tribunal, but received a decision of dismissal on October 15, 2013.

【Unsatisfied facts, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 9, and Eul evidence 10, respectively.

arrow