beta
Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit
Gwangju District Court-2014-Gu Partnership-1656 ( October 11, 2015)
Title
The agreement on the land which was concluded shall be terminated, but it shall not be deemed to have been actually owned, and it shall not be deemed assets excluded from unregistered transfer assets.
Summary
(1) The land within the land transaction permission zone was canceled after the purchase agreement was made, but the purchase price was paid in full and was actually owned by establishing the establishment of the mortgage registration of neighboring land. Since the full amount of the land compensation was received, it constitutes unregistered transfer.
Cases
2015Nu5824 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax
Plaintiff and appellant
AA, BB
Defendant, Appellant
○ Head of tax office
Judgment of the first instance court
Gwangju District Court Decision 2014Guhap1656 Decided June 11, 2015
Conclusion of Pleadings
December 17, 2015
Imposition of Judgment
2016.013
Text
1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
Purport of claim and appeal
The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. On February 4, 2014, the defendant revoked all the imposition of ○○○○○○○ (including additional taxes) for each of the ○○○○○○○○ (including the filing date and the date of the disposition stated in the purport of the claim of the judgment of the first instance court. " February 5, 2014" seems to be written in writing of February 4, 2014.
Reasons
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: "No. 19, 207.11.19," "No. 2007.11.21," "No. 8, 2007.11.21," "Plaintiff AB" in the first part of the second part of the second part of the second part of the second part shall be "Plaintiff A", "No. 23, 2007.24," "No. 24, 2007.15, No. 415, No. 6, No. 14, 12, 15, and 13, "No. 5, 2014" in the fourth part, No. 7 of the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be cited with "No. 4, 2014," except for the reasons for the first part of the judgment, as stated in Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 40 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Conclusion
Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.