Suwon District Court-2013-Gu Group-11653 (Law No. 17, 2014)

It is insufficient to recognize that the transfer of this case was reverted to UCC rather than the plaintiff.

The evidence alone submitted by the Plaintiff that income from the transfer of this case belongs to UCC rather than the Plaintiff, and it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff spent necessary expenses for the transfer of this case.

2014Nu6481 Revocation of disposition of imposing capital gains tax

UO

XX Head of tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2013Gudan1653 Decided September 17, 2014

May 7, 2015

June 4, 2015

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

the Gu Office's place of service and place of service

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 on August 1, 2012 that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on August 1, 2012 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as follows, and it is identical to the reasoning of the first instance court's judgment, and thus, it is accepted by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(2) The main part shall be the part

C. Article 7-6-7 of the first instance court's decision "whether the actual debtor in the case of each creditor" is "whether the actual debtor in the case of each creditor is who is the debtor in the case of each creditor's claim."

Pursuant to the 8-9th judgment of the first instance court, the part of the "where the title trust relationship of the plaintiff's assertion is recognized, the exclusion period of imposition of penalty surcharge already exceeds that of the tax justice and equity" is "where the title trust relationship of the plaintiff's assertion is recognized, the plaintiff and the plaintiff's UCC will not be imposed any capital gains tax, nor any penalty surcharge imposed on the title trust, so that the motive for false argument would be dissatisdable."

o. The part of the west No. 3-4 of the first instance court's decision that "DD's opening business of EE industry development" is as follows: "D's opening business of EE industry development"; and the part of the 9th court's 16th court's 9th 16th 16th 9th 9th 9th 9th 9th 16th 16th 1st

○ The 11th judgment of the first instance court is based on the following list:

1. A site for an OO-EupO warehouse: 274;

2. The site for the same OO warehouse: 672;

3. The site for the same OO warehouse: 1236;

4. The site for the same OO warehouse 926;

5. The site for the same OO warehouse: 300;

6. The site for the same OO warehouse: 144;

7. The site for the same OO warehouse: 702

8. The site for the same OO warehouse: 276;

9. The site for the same OO warehouse 600;

10. 804 end in the same RiO warehouse site.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.