early 2010 Heavy0122, 20103.22

Any disposition imposing capital gains tax by reporting the transfer of sales rights is legitimate.

In light of the fact that the name of the purchaser after being granted the right of sale has changed without any consideration after being given the right of sale, it is reasonable to view that the sale contract is not about the housing but about the right of sale, and the sale price is also about the right

2010Guhap882 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

GuAA

○ Head of tax office

December 9, 2010

January 13, 201

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 capital gains tax of KRW 148,024,50 against the Plaintiff on September 18, 2009 is revoked (as a preliminary claim, the Plaintiff sought revocation of the portion exceeding the amount of capital gains tax calculated again by deducting KRW 99,465,00 out of the capital gains tax amount from the said amount as a necessary expense and deducting KRW 99,465,00,000 from the said amount as a preliminary claim, but this cannot be deemed as a separate claim that is merely a part of the quantity of the primary

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 2009, the director of the Central Regional Tax Office confirmed that the Plaintiff, as a person subject to measures for relocation of the housing site in △△ City, transferred the right to sell a site of 258 square meters to KimA and KimB (hereinafter “the right to sell the instant land”) as a person subject to measures for relocation of the housing site in △△ City, 11-2, a person subject to measures for relocation of the housing site, without filing a report on capital gains tax, and notified the Defendant on January 1, 2007, of the acquisition of the acquisition tax by adding the down payment of KRW 200,000,000 that the Plaintiff received from the buyer of the instant land (hereinafter “the purchase price of this case”) and the down payment of KRW 49,465,000 (hereinafter “the down payment of this case”) for taxation data paid by the buyer of this case and the acquisition tax of KRW 249,465,000 (hereinafter “the down payment of this case”).

B. On September 18, 2009, the Defendant determined and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 149,772,250 of the transfer income tax for the year 2007, with the acquisition value of KRW 249,465,00,00 as KRW 49,465,00.

C. On December 14, 2009, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the above disposition and filed a request for adjudication with the Director of the Tax Tribunal. On March 22, 2010, the Director of the Tax Tribunal recognized the brokerage commission paid by the Plaintiff to thisCC (hereinafter “instant brokerage commission”) as necessary expenses and corrected the tax base and tax amount. The Plaintiff’s remaining request for adjudication was dismissed. The Defendant recognized the brokerage commission of this case as necessary expenses according to the decision of the Director of the Tax Tribunal, and corrected the said disposition by reducing KRW 1,747,750 among the above disposition (hereinafter “the instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 5-1 to 3, Eul evidence 1-1, 2, Eul evidence 2-6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Main argument

On March 26, 2002, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract of KRW 200,000,000 for the instant purchase price (hereinafter “the instant sales contract”) with the instant purchaser on March 26, 200 with respect to 200,000 square meters of housing of 2-12 square meters above ○○-dong, ○○-dong, ○○-si, ○○○-si, ○○○-si, ○○-si, ○○-si, ○○-dong, ○○-dong, ○, ○-dong, ○, ○-dong, ○-dong, ○○-dong, ○○-dong, ○-dong, ○-si, and sold the instant housing to the instant purchaser. Since the instant housing was acquired by the Plaintiff on April 8, 1994, the instant disposition

(2) Preliminary assertion

가사 원고가 이 사건 분양권을 이 사건 매수인들에게 매도한 것이라고 하더라도, 피고가 양도가액으로 삼은 249,465,000원 중 ① 이 사건 매수인들이 대납한 이 사건 계약금 49,465,000원,② 원고가 한국토지주택공사로부터 이 사건 주택에 관한 보상금으로 수령하여 이 사건 매수인들에게 반환한 30,000,000원,③ 원고가 이 사건 매매계약의 수수료로 지급한 20,000,000원(= ㉠ 송DD에게 지급한 10,000,000원 + ㉡ 장EE에게 지급한 5,000,000원 + ㉢ 이CC에게 지급한 이 사건 중개수수료 2,500,000원 +㉣ 권FF에게 지급한 2,500,000원)의 합계 금 99,465,000은 필요경비로 인정되어 양도가액에서 공제되어야 한다.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Judgment on the main argument

In light of the following circumstances, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 3-3, Eul evidence 5-1 through 3, Eul evidence 6-1, Eul evidence 2-6-1, and the whole purport of pleadings, i.e., the sales contract date of this case ( March 26, 2002) is the date of public notice for public inspection of the area for housing site development ( October 17, 2001) and the date of public notice for public inspection of the area for housing site development ( December 26, 2001), it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff and the purchaser of this case were aware that the housing of this case will be destroyed at the time of the sales contract of this case, and that the purchase price of this case will be compensated for the sale price of this case. 2. According to the sales contract of this case, the purchase price of this case shall be compensated for the sale price of this case after the sale price of this case.

(2) Judgment on the conjunctive assertion

In addition, with respect to KRW 30,500,00, which the buyer of this case paid the down payment of KRW 49,465,000 on behalf of the buyer of this case, and KRW 2,50,000,000, which was already paid to ECC, are fully reflected in the disposition of this case. In addition, with respect to KRW 30,00,000, which the Plaintiff received from the Korea Land and Housing Corporation as compensation for the housing of this case and returned to the buyer of this case, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. The Plaintiff paid KRW 17,50,000,00 as the commission for the sales contract of this case (i.e., KRW 10,000,000 + KRW 5,50,0000 + KRW 250,000,000,000 which was paid to ECE, and there is no evidence to prove that only the Plaintiff submitted the receipts of this case, No. 4, and No. 24, respectively.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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