If a building is acquired along with the land and the ground building, but only the land is removed and transferred, the requirements for the acquisition value of the building and the removal cost, etc. to be included in the necessary expenses

In case where land and a building on the ground are demolished to be used together with the land and a building on the ground, and only the land is transferred in the state of the site, the acquisition value, removal expenses, etc. of the removed building shall be included in the necessary expenses of the transferred property included in the acquisition value of the land, limited to the case where it is deemed that the acquisition of the land and a building was for the purpose of utilizing only the land by removing the land from the beginning to the building

Article 45 of the Income Tax Act

Plaintiff

The Director of Gangnam District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 88Gu2658 delivered on November 28, 1988

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined.

The court below determined that the transfer value of the land and the building of this case cannot be determined by the court below on June 10, 1972, since 8 persons including the plaintiff et al., jointly purchased the land of this case and the building of this case on December 15, 1986 and agreed to deliver the building of this case to the state of site, and only transferred the land in the state of site, the acquisition value of the removed building and the cost of removal, etc. to be included in the necessary expenses of the transferred building including the acquisition value of the land of this case shall be determined only when the removal of the land and the building of this case is obviously deemed to have been the purpose of using only the land of this case by removing the building from the beginning to the beginning, and the acquisition value of the building of this case cannot be determined by the court below to have been unlawful since the plaintiff et al. had no reasons to view that the transfer value of the land of this case and the building of this case cannot be determined as the transfer value of the building of this case to the next 14,22, and the latter 3 were unlawful.

3. Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)