2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. Plaintiff B is the wife of Plaintiff ParkCC, and Nonparty KimD is the wife of Nonparty GE.

(B) On December 23, 2002, Nonparty bF completed the registration of ownership transfer on the land and buildings listed in [Attachment 1] List of Real Estate on December 23, 2002 (hereinafter collectively referred to as "land and buildings of this case"). Plaintiff BB and KimD on May 26, 2006, respectively, completed the registration of ownership transfer from Park FF on May 15, 2006 on each of the shares of the instant land and buildings, and on September 28, 2007, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on September 21, 2007 on each of the shares of the instant land and buildings on September 21, 2007, and on March 4, 2009 on each of the remaining shares. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 20380, May 39, 2009>

“The Defendant: (a) the Plaintiff ParkCC held title trust of 1/2 shares among the instant land and buildings with ParkF; (b) determined that the title trust was terminated on May 26, 2006, and determined that it was donated to the Plaintiff LeeB, the wife; (c) on April 7, 2009, the Plaintiff LeeB imposed the gift tax of 125,935,590 won for the year 2006 and the gift tax of 19,50,740 won for the year 2007; and (d) the Plaintiff ParkCC imposed the gift tax of 75,506,130 won for the year 206 (the fact that the donee had taken over the donor’s obligation with compensation for the transfer of the donor’s obligation related to donated property), and (e) determined that the Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the claim for adjudication on June 4, 2009, but dismissed on June 19, 2009.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2-2, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 3-1, 2-2, and Gap evidence 20, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion is as follows.

The Plaintiffs asserted that the instant land and buildings were entirely entrusted to ParkF under the name of ParkF as the actual owner, but Plaintiff ParkCC is neither the actual owner nor the title truster, nor Plaintiff B acquired 1/2 shares of the instant land and buildings from ParkF, and the instant disposition was unlawful on the ground that the instant disposition was based on erroneous determination of facts.

3. Related statutes;

The entry into "Annex 2-related Acts and subordinate statutes", 4. Determination

A. In a case where a title truster transfers real estate to a third party and income accrued from such transfer was attributed to the title truster, if the title truster, who is the subject of transfer, does not become a taxpayer of the relevant capital gains tax under the principle of substantial taxation under Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes (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 ParkCC obtained 1/2 shares of the instant land and buildings, and owned the name of ParkFFF by lending it to the Plaintiff B. In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff Park Poe-CC was to have donated it to the Plaintiff B by acquiring 1/2 shares of the instant land and buildings, and holding it in the name of ParkFF.

(1) Around November 2002, 200, the Plaintiff ParkCC as an advisor, who was a person in charge of the accounting of the JJJJJ corporation, YE as a regular manager, reported to the Plaintiff ParkCC that the purchase price of the instant land and buildings was required for KRW 297,00,000 after investigating the purchase price of the instant land and buildings in accordance with the direction of the Plaintiff ParkCC, and deposited the said KRW 297,000,000 with the ParkCC’s account on December 2, 2002, and delivered the registration certificate of the instant land and buildings to the Plaintiff ParkCC. Accordingly, the Plaintiff ParkCC provided 297,000,000 won for purchasing the instant land and buildings.

(2) ParkF, the owner of the instant land and building on the registry, was not the actual owner, but the actual owner of the instant land and building, and the title trustor and the actual owner of the instant land and building stated that the title trustor and the title trustor were the Plaintiff ParkCC. The YF had registered the business under the name of the Plaintiff BB, and the ParkF did not participate in the operation of the YU and operated the YU.

(3) On September 2005, KimL, who served as a bowling instructor in the instant building, was contacted by Plaintiff ParkCC and worked in the viewing site in the instant building, and thereafter received monthly wages from Plaintiff ParkCC, and reported the details of the daily income settlement to Plaintiff B of the instant building.

“(4) At the time of lease of the store Gamb Co., Ltd. on the first floor of the instant building, Plaintiff LambCC entered into a lease agreement with the lessee, and received the lease deposit from Seommmb.” (5) Plaintiff B stated that Plaintiff B dealt with each of the instant land and buildings, including the source of money, and all of the above shares transfer.

(6) A person who negotiated a purchase of the instant land and building from KimD and Lee B, who was the purchaser of the instant land and building on the registry, is HuHH. He concluded a building purchase contract with the instant land in the name of the Plaintiffs, Park E-E, and Kim GG. He stated that the Plaintiff had received the documents to transfer the registration from ParkCC.

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, and it is so decided as per Disposition.