In accordance with the res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment, no party may assert the invalidity of the disposition of imposition.

The plaintiff filed an administrative litigation seeking revocation of disposition, and thus, the Supreme Court rejected the disposition of this case in accordance with the res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment. Thus, the plaintiff cannot assert the invalidity of the disposition of this case.

2017Gudan8235 Invalidity of a disposition imposing capital gains tax

OO

O Head of tax office

2017.09.22

oly 13, 2017

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant confirms that the imposition of the transfer income tax for the 20OO plaintiff on the 20OO.O. plaintiff is invalid.

1. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff newly constructed 20O.O.O. and sold 6 bonds in the same year and 2 bonds in the following year on the ground of O.O.O. and 2 lots (hereinafter referred to as "the land in this case").

The plaintiff deemed that the above multi-household house falls under the business income of the housing construction and sales business under the Income Tax Act, and paid the corresponding tax amount through each global income tax return in 2000 and 2000. The defendant, for the plaintiff 200O.O.O.O., on the ground that the plaintiff transferred the land of this case to AA, a constructor of multi-household house, for KRW 500 million, 200 O.O.O.O.O., 200.

(1) However, as claimed by the Defendant, the Plaintiff received KRW 500 million from AA to pay for the transfer of the instant land, or completed the registration of transfer of ownership of the instant land in the name of AAA, so there is no fact that the time of the transfer of the instant land is 200O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O., as claimed by the Defendant, there is no ground under the Income Tax Act, and there is no fact that the Plaintiff received KRW 200 million from AA. In addition, there is no capital gains under the Income Tax Act because the Plaintiff received KRW 200,000 from AA.O.O., which is alleged by the Defendant, since the disposition in the instant case was erroneous applying the taxation standard and its defect is material and obvious, the confirmation of the invalidity of the disposition in this case is sought.

2. Determination

In full view of the purport of evidence Nos. 2-1 through 4-4, the plaintiff's assertion that "the plaintiff provided the land of this case against the defendant and entered into a partnership agreement with "AA to newly build and sell multi-household houses on the land of this case" and did not transfer the land of this case to AA. The plaintiff filed an administrative litigation seeking cancellation of the disposition of this case, but the dismissal judgment becomes final (O district court 20OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO of 20OO.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O., Supreme Court 200O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O., etc., of this case, the judgment of this case has res judicata effect, so the plaintiff's assertion that this case's disposition of this case is void.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed for lack of reason.