Cases that do not constitute necessary expenses under Article 45 (1) of the Income Tax Act

In order to avoid the resale of real estate, the amount paid by the seller to the original seller in the name of the buyer when the seller completes the registration of direct ownership transfer from the original seller, shall not be considered as necessary expenses under each subparagraph of Article 45 (1) of the Income Tax Act.

Article 45 (1) of the Income Tax Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Head of Western Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu602 delivered on October 16, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's purchase of 172,50,00 won of the above land from the non-party 1 for the above 172,50,000 won (the above 66,00,000 won was increased due to the determination of land substitution) and the sale of part of the above land to the non-party 24,540,000 won for September of the same year without completing the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the non-party 1 for the above 1983. The court below rejected the plaintiff's above 269,960,000 won for the above 10,000 won for the above 70,000 won for the above 10,000 won for the above 10,000 won for the above 10,000 won for the above 20,000 won for the above 70,000 won for the above real property and the above 2060,50605,20605,2060

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and decision of the court below are just, and there is no basis to find that there is a violation of the rules of evidence or a misunderstanding of the legal principles on the Income Tax Act, such as the theory

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Byung-su (Presiding Justice)