logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.05.13 2014구단1998
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 October 5, 2002, the Plaintiff transferred to C the accommodation facilities of five stories in Seoul, B, 161.3 square meters, and on its ground (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and reported the transfer income tax by setting the transfer value of KRW 250,000,000, acquisition value of KRW 230,000,000.

B. On May 3, 2012, the head of Echeon Tax Office conducted a field investigation on C on a real estate, and confirmed that C acquired the instant real estate in KRW 750,000,000 and transferred it in KRW 800,000,000, and notified the Defendant of the fact that C had underreported the transfer income tax.

C. On April 1, 2013, the Defendant determined the transfer value of the instant real estate as KRW 750,000,000, and the acquisition value as KRW 230,000,000, and corrected the transfer income tax for the year 2002 as KRW 521,292,634, and paid and notified the Plaintiff KRW 521,10,542, excluding the transfer income tax for the previous decision.

On April 29, 2014, the plaintiff appealed and filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal for a review on April 29, 2014, and the defendant conducted a reinvestigation, and reduced the transfer income tax for the year 2002 to 292,421,125 won (including penalty tax for failure to file a return and penalty tax for failure to pay due)

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). [Grounds for recognition] : Gap’s 1, 2, 4, and 6-1, 2-1, 1-2, and 1-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Although the Plaintiff acquired the instant real estate in KRW 680,00,000, the Plaintiff did not keep sales contract and financial evidence to prove the acquisition value. In such a case, the Defendant deemed that the acquisition value is unclear and calculated the transfer income tax on a different premise is unlawful. 2) The Plaintiff reported and paid the transfer income tax on October 22, 2002, and the Defendant issued the instant disposition on April 1, 2013, more than 10 years thereafter.

arrow