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

A. On June 7, 2007, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the Plaintiff on May 18, 2007, 2007 with respect to Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-dong 00-00 773 m2 (hereinafter “the land of this case”) and on November 26, 2007, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the Plaintiff on November 26, 2007 with respect to the land of this case as "21,200,000 won as the cause of the registration."

B. After that, on June 2, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a final return on capital gains tax of 37,594,975 won on the transfer of the instant land to YellowB to the Defendant for KRW 321,20,000 on June 2, 2008, on which the final return was filed for capital gains tax of 2007, but did not pay the said tax accordingly.

C. On August 10, 2008, the Defendant imposed and notified a total of KRW 38,373,190 (including KRW 38,373,190) including KRW 77,594,975, which was reported to the Plaintiff, due to negligence in payment.

D. Accordingly, on September 2, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a request for correction of capital gains tax to the effect that the acquisition value of the instant land was not 234,00,000 won but 290,000,000 won, and since the actual owner of the instant land was the largestCC and the Plaintiff was merely the title trustee and the transfer income was attributed to the largestCC, the Plaintiff filed a request for correction of imposition of capital gains tax to the effect that the Plaintiff would impose capital gains tax on the instant land on the Plaintiff and the largestCC under the substance over form principle. On October 19, 2010, the Defendant accepted the portion regarding the acquisition value of the instant land among the transfer income tax imposed and notified to the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff, which was 26,279,684 won among the transfer income tax imposed and corrected (12,093,506 won after revision), and the Plaintiff did not accept the instant disposition of refusal on the ground that the said title trust was the title trust.

E. On February 28, 201, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant refusal disposition, filed a request for review with the National Tax Service on February 28, 201, but the National Tax Service dismissed it on April 18, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 4, 9 evidence, Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition of this case is unlawful

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The actual owner of the instant land is the largestCC, and the Plaintiff is only the title trustee. Accordingly, the Plaintiff did not provide the purchase fund, etc. at the time of acquiring the instant land and did not gain any profit from the transfer. On the other hand, the Plaintiff did all the acts concerning the acquisition and transfer of the instant land in the Plaintiff’s name (a conclusion of each sales contract, payment, receipt, etc. of the purchase price, etc.) and took profits from such transfer. Therefore, under the substance over form principle, the transfer income tax on the transfer of the instant land should be imposed on the Plaintiff, not the Plaintiff, but the largestCC. Nevertheless, the instant disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s claim to impose the transfer income tax on the Plaintiff, not the Plaintiff, is unlawful.

B. Determination

1) Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "if the ownership of the income, profit, property, or transaction subject to taxation is nominal and there is a separate person to whom such income, profit, or transaction belongs, the person to whom such income actually belongs shall be liable to pay taxes." The fact that such ownership of income is merely nominal and there is a separate person to whom such income is actually earned, has the burden of proof to the claimant (see Supreme Court Decision 84Nu505, Dec. 11, 1984).

2) In full view of the following circumstances, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 4, 5, and 7 (including branch numbers) were as follows: (i) the purchaser is the plaintiff in a sales contract prepared by entering into a sales contract for the land of this case with leA, which is the former owner; (ii) the purchaser is the plaintiff's agent; and (iii) the purchaser was granted a loan of KRW 270,00,000 from Nonghyup under the name of the plaintiff at the time of purchase of the land of this case, and the purchase price was deemed to have been paid for the land of this case with the Central Agricultural Cooperatives and the New Saemaul Bank; (iv) the building permit application for new construction of the building on the land of this case and the name of the building owner on the building permit No. 4, 5, and 7 were also insufficient to prove the sale price of the land of this case as the seller's agent; and (v) the sale price of the land of this case was determined as the sale price No. 5, 2, Ga, and evidence No. 5.

In light of the above evidence and circumstances, evidence No. 7-2 (acquisition and title trust confirmation, certificate of personal seal impression), witness Kim DD’s partial testimony cannot be deemed to be a hotly reliable, and evidence No. 8 (fact confirmation) and the court’s fact inquiry about EE alone is insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s above assertion.

(3) Furthermore, Article 3(1) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name (amended by the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name; hereinafter “Real Estate Real Name Act”) provides that “no person shall register any real right to real estate under the name of the title trustee pursuant to the title trust agreement,” and that any change in real right to real estate under the title trust agreement shall be null and void: Provided, That the same shall not apply where the title trustee becomes a party to a contract for the acquisition of real right to real estate and the party was unaware of the fact that the title trust agreement exists. Considering the above provisions, the title truster and the title trustee entered into the so-called contract title trust agreement after the enforcement of the Real Estate Real Name Act, and the title trustee completed the registration of ownership transfer of the pertinent real estate under the title trust agreement with the other party to the contract, and thus, the other party to the contract was deemed to have acquired the pertinent real estate under the title trust agreement with the Plaintiff, the title truster and the title trustee were deemed to have fully known the ownership of the pertinent real estate and thus, 20.

4) Therefore, the Defendant’s refusal disposition of this case rejecting the Plaintiff’s request for correction is justifiable.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.