2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

(a) Land and buildings listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”);

On December 23, 2002, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of Nonparty GaD on December 23, 2002, and on May 26, 2006, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the Selection KimCC (Plaintiff’s wife), Nonparty E (the wife of Nonparty Ba F) on each one-half share of the 1/2 shares," and “B. After conducting a tax investigation, the Defendant imposed the gift tax on the Plaintiff on May 26, 2006, on April 14, 2009, after the Plaintiff’s title trust of 1/2 shares among the land and buildings of this case was deemed to have been donated to GaD, and on April 14, 2009, the Defendant imposed the gift tax on the Plaintiff for each of the following reasons: “No. 35,506,130 won (the obligation of the donor related to the property of this case was transferred for consideration; No. 3731, May 26, 2009).

2. The plaintiff's assertion is as follows.

The Plaintiff asserts that the entire land and buildings of this case were title trusted by ParkF to ParkF as the actual owner, and the Plaintiff is not the actual owner or the title truster of the shares of 1/2, and the registration under the name of KimCC was merely a title trust again made by ParkF to KimCC, and the instant disposition was unlawful on the ground that the Plaintiff did not donate to KimCC.

3. Related statutes;

Attachment 'Related Acts and subordinate statutes' shall be as shown.

4. Determination

A. In a case where a real estate was entrusted in the name of a third party, if the title truster transfers the real estate to the third party and the income accrued from such transfer reverts to the title truster, under the principle of substantial taxation under Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the taxpayer of the relevant capital gains tax does not become the taxpayer of the said transfer income tax (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu6387, Oct. 10, 197).

B. In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff acquired shares of 1/2 of the instant land and buildings, and owned it in the name of GCC, and donated it to the KimCC, by taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings in each period of No. 26, No. 28, and No. 4 (including household numbers), as seen earlier, evidence as mentioned above, and evidence No. 26, No. 28, and No. 4 (including household numbers), and evidence No. 1/2 of this case, and evidence No. 4, No. 5, and witnessG testimony alone are insufficient to reverse it.

(1) The right HH, who had completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant land and buildings, did not have met Park Do before a sales contract was concluded, and the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff entered into a sales negotiation and a sales contract, and the ParkF stated that he was only a witness at the time of the preparation of the sales contract.

(2) The Plaintiff: (a) recognized the fact that Park DoD received the entire title trust of the instant land and buildings, and argued that ParkF would be a title truster; (b) Park DoD was placed under title trust with the Plaintiff’s introduction during the tax investigation process; (c) was the actual owner of the instant land and buildings; and (d) demanded ParkF and the Plaintiff to terminate the title trust of the instant land and buildings; and (c) thereafter, the registration of transfer of 1/2 shares in the instant land and buildings was made due to the Plaintiff’s share in the instant land and buildings.

(3) In the course of the tax investigation, KimCC stated that the Plaintiff, who is the husband, was aware of the developments leading up to the registration of ownership transfer in its own name with respect to the shares of 1/2 of the instant land and buildings, and that all of the shares were disposed

(4) The funds required at the time of acquiring the instant land and buildings in the name of ParkD are KRW 297,00,000 if the funds were excluded from the loans and the acceptance amount of the rental deposit obligation, etc., which are subsequently accepted by the JB bank (hereinafter “JB bank”), and this funds were paid to the seller or paid to the seller by deposit with the Plaintiff’s account, and the interest on the said loans was paid by the Plaintiff to the account of ParkD.

(5) On December 23, 2002, a title truster created a collateral on the instant land and building under the name of ParkDD and used the purchase price for a loan of KRW 1.3 billion to JB bank, debtor Park Do, and maximum debt amount of KRW 1.755 million. On May 26, 2006, KimCC repaid the designated principal and interest of the instant land and building as a collateral, and on September 1, 2006, set up a collateral on the instant land and building owned by KimCC, a collateral on the amount of KRW 1.69 billion with the maximum debt amount of KRW 1.69 billion, and the previous registration of the establishment of a collateral was cancelled on September 4, 2006.

(6) On October 9, 2006, in order to secure the Plaintiff’s obligation to ParkF, the registration of creation of a mortgage on the instant land and building owned by KimCC was terminated on September 28, 2007 by the mortgagee EE (LF), the obligor KimCC, and the maximum amount of debt nine hundred million won. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 20190, Sep. 28, 2007>

(7) The Plaintiff, along with ParkF, was actually involved in the lease and management of the instant building, and the Plaintiff filed an extradition suit against part of the first floor of the instant building around 2005.

Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

5. Conclusion

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