early 2011west 2557 ( November 23, 2011)

There is no evidence to acknowledge that the disbursement of civil engineering design service costs, forest trees research costs, etc. has been made;

The assertion regarding necessary expenses, such as the cost of civil engineering and design, the cost of services, or the cost of research on forest trees, is not reported as necessary expenses at the time of reporting, and is a new assertion that began during the appeal process, the receipt submitted, etc. was retroactively prepared, and there is no evidence that the tax authority recognizes that it is separate from the cost recognized as necessary expenses, etc.

2012Gudan5643 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

KimA

Head of the Do Tax Office

December 14, 2012

January 11, 2013

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 000 for the year 2007 against the Plaintiff on May 1, 201 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고는 1999. 7. 2. BBB관리소로부터 경기 가평군 하면 OOO 산 000 임야 5，511㎡와 동소 산 0000 임야 1， 110㎡를 취득하여， 2004. 10. 11. 같은 리 산 000로 토지를 합병하였다가， 2005. 1. 18. 위 토지를 같은 리 산 000 임야 1，466㎡， 산 000 임 야 1，438㎡， 산 0000-7 임야 690㎡， 산 0000-8 임야 1，143㎡， 산 0000-9 임야 1，142㎡， 산 0000 임야 742㎡로 분할하였다.

나. 원고는 2005. 1. 18. 위 임야들 중 산 000 임야 1，466㎡와 산 0000 임야 중 148㎡를 양도하였고， 2007. 8. 23. 나머지 토지인 산 0000-6 임야 1，438㎡' 산 0000-7 임야 690㎡， 산 0000-8 임야 1，143㎡， 산 0000-9 임야，142㎡， 산 0000 임야 594㎡(이하 후자를 '이 사건 임야'라 한다)를 양도하였다.

C. In relation to the transfer of the instant forest, the Plaintiff reported the transfer income tax by deeming that the transfer gains amount to be KRW 000, and the acquisition amount to be KRW 000,000, which is calculated by dividing the total acquisition value (including KRW 000,000, and KRW 000,000, which is calculated by dividing the total acquisition area ( KRW 6,621,000,000,000, and the other necessary expenses to be KRW 00,000, and the transfer gains amount to be KRW 00,00.

D. The Defendant: (a) determined that the transfer income tax for the forest of this case was early 18 January 2005; (b) the transfer value was 000 won; and (c) the acquisition value was 000 won divided by the transfer area for the acquired area; (d) the acquisition cost was 000 won divided by the transfer area for the acquired area; and (c) the necessary cost was 000 won calculated by subtracting 00 won for the housing design cost unrelated to the transfer of land among the acquisition cost of 00 won and other necessary expenses; and (d) separately divided the subject amount into the generation cost before and after January 18, 2005, the transfer income tax was 100 won divided by the transfer area for the total acquired area, and 00 won, which was 100 won after January 18, 2008, and 2000 won for transfer gains tax was 100 years or less (hereinafter referred to as the “transfer income tax of this case”).

E. On July 13, 2011, the Plaintiff appealed to the Director of the Tax Tribunal, but the Director of the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s request on November 23, 201, and filed the instant lawsuit.

[Grounds for Recognition] The non-sovered facts, Gap evidence 23, Eul evidence 26, Eul evidence 1, and Eul evidence 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On May 4, 1999, the Plaintiff entered into a service contract for permission for development and change of the form and quality of land with HanE, the representative of the II Land Survey and Design Corporation, made a civil engineering design service contract with HanE on November 26, 199, and paid a total of KRW 000 to him until June 17, 200, and conducted a joint investigation into the above other necessary expenses (hereinafter referred to as “the above necessary expenses”) on May 17, 2002 in order to construct 5 detached houses and build access roads on the ground after having failed to do so, and to construct 5 detached houses and build access roads on the ground, the Plaintiff made a service contract for permission for development and change of the form and quality of land with the representative of the GG Land Survey and the representative of the GG Land Survey and Design Corporation, including KRW 00,000, and conducted a joint investigation into the above necessary expenses from around March 29, 2003 to the above necessary expenses.

B. Determination

The plaintiff's above assertion concerning the following circumstances, which are not reported as necessary expenses at the time of filing a transfer income tax report, is a new assertion that the plaintiff started only at the request for a trial, as well as the witnessF's testimony in the court's GG surveying construction work, the total amount received from the plaintiff in relation to permission for changing the form and quality of the forest is less than 00 won, and the Corporation's lawful fact-finding in Gap evidence No. 9-4 (00 won on October 4, 2002) submitted by the plaintiff is less than 0 won, and it is not obvious that the plaintiff visited the above GG surveying construction work from 200 or 201 to see the overall purport of the argument. The plaintiff's assertion about the transfer of the forest land in this case and other necessary expenses is not sufficient, and there is no evidence that the plaintiff submitted to the GG surveying construction work in question with respect to the permission for changing the form and quality of the land in this case, and there is no other evidence that the defendant submitted to the GG surveying construction work in question separately, and there is no other evidence that the change of form and quality.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.