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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of the capital gains tax belonging to the year 2007 as of May 2, 201 and the penalty tax of the capital gains tax as of January 14, 2013 shall be revoked entirely.

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by Gap evidence 26, Eul evidence 29-1, Eul evidence 1 through 4, 9, 15, and the whole purport of the arguments.

"OB, OB, OB, OB, and 12,637 square meters (hereinafter "the real estate of this case"), POB, OB, OB, and 16 lots of land, and this shall be entrusted to BB, and this shall accordingly purchase OB, from KimCC on February 16, 2005, OB, OB, and 49, and 14 parcels of the real estate of this case from OB, with the Plaintiff's funds, completed provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer registration on February 15, 2005 under the name of OB, for sale of the real estate of this case to POB, OB, and 200 on March 11, 2005.

D. Around April 2, 2010, this B filed an objection with the Busan Regional Tax Office on April 2, 2010, but dismissed on April 28, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a petition for review with the National Tax Service on July 22, 2010, and subsequently filed a civil petition for grievance with the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission on December 27, 2010. On January 20, 2011, the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission requested the Busan Regional Tax Office to re-examine the disposition imposing capital gains tax, and accordingly, the Busan Regional Tax Office re-examines the disposition from January 24, 201 to January 28, 2011, and notified the Defendant of the data on taxation.

E. On May 2, 2011, the Defendant determined and notified the Plaintiff on May 2, 201, the amount of capital gains tax corresponding to the portion of the instant real estate reverted to the year 2007, and the Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for examination with the National Tax Service on July 22, 201, but the National Tax Service dismissed the Plaintiff’s request on January 26, 201.

F. Meanwhile, the Defendant revoked ex officio the imposition of additional tax on November 30, 201 in order to specify the type of additional tax on the capital gains tax as well as the grounds for the calculation thereof, and subsequently imposed the additional tax on January 14, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the imposition of additional tax”), and the imposition of additional tax on the Plaintiff on January 14, 201, together with the imposition of the additional tax on the capital gains tax as of January 14, 201, and the imposition of additional tax on the Plaintiff.”

A. The plaintiff's assertion

For the following reasons, the instant disposition should be revoked in an unlawful manner.

1) Around February 2005, the Plaintiff purchased the instant real estate in the name of BB and trusted the instant real estate to B without the Plaintiff’s consent. B voluntarily sold the instant real estate without the Plaintiff’s consent, and then disposed of the instant real estate by purchasing it in its own name or investing it in the fund, etc., and the sales price of the instant real estate did not substantially accrue to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff does not constitute a person liable to pay capital gains tax on the instant real estate.

2) According to the results of the audit by the director of the Busan Regional Tax Office, the Defendant notified this case’s transfer income tax amount on January 7, 2010 to BB, and the BB filed an objection on April 2, 2010, on April 5, 2010, on which the Plaintiff was a party to the taxation disposition and subsequently dismissed this BB’s objection. However, without any legal basis, the Defendant conducted a reinvestigation based on the re-audit decision on January 20, 201 of the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission, and without any legal basis, determined the Plaintiff as a taxpayer for capital gains tax of the instant real estate and issued the instant disposition to the Plaintiff. This constitutes double tax investigation prohibited under the Framework Act on National Taxes.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by Gap evidence 5-1, 2, 7-13, and all the arguments.

1) On May 5, 2004, the Plaintiff, who operated an adult amusement room, issued a warrant of arrest on charges of violating the Sound Records, Video Products and Game Software Act, etc., the Plaintiff started the escape life, and came to know of MF, which was a police officer in charge of the escape life. The MF supported the Plaintiff’s escape life by forging a driver’s license necessary for the Plaintiff’s escape life, and the Plaintiff was willing to escape with the above support of MF.

2) From November 2004, the Plaintiff: (a) delegated the management of the entertainment room that he had been engaged in to the MF; (b) the MF and the B transferred its property management, including GGG, HH metal, Co., Ltd., Ltd., HG and II, and (c) entrusted the trust of the entire shares of the GGJ to the MF and its wife KimJ; (d) around December 2005, the Plaintiff opened a restaurant to thisB and requested the MF to operate the restaurant with the intent of this BB. In addition, the Plaintiff registered the MF as the representative director of GGG, HM, HM, HM, and II’s auditor; and (c) the PEF received the OOO staff’s benefits from the Plaintiff to the representative director’s remuneration from the Plaintiff.

3) From September 2008, when the Plaintiff came to know of the fact that the BB and the CF were in inhumane relationship, they filed a complaint with an investigative agency as a crime of adultery, and the BB and the CF were indicted as a crime of adultery on July 20, 2010 and convicted.

4) On the other hand, on May 25, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a divorce and a lawsuit for the division of consolation money and property with the Busan District Court Family Court 2009Dhap2456 (this BB also filed a counterclaim to seek divorce and consolation money and the division of property). On July 26, 2012, the above court accepted the Plaintiff’s claim for divorce and the Plaintiff’s claim for the division of property, and dismissed both the Plaintiff’s claim for division of property and the Nonparty’s counterclaim (the above court dismissed both the Plaintiff and BB’s claim for division of property by calculating the tax liability imposed on the instant real property as the Plaintiff’s negative property). The Plaintiff and BB appealed appealed appealed all, and on June 26, 2013, the Busan District Court rendered a waiver of the claim for consolation money accepted by the Plaintiff in the judgment of the first instance.

C. Determination

1) Although the title of title trust property is owned by the trustee, the actual ownership of the property is owned by the trustee. Thus, if the trustee transfers the trust property by his/her own intention, he/she is a person liable to pay capital gains tax in the position of de facto controlling, managing, and disposing of the transfer income (see Supreme Court Decision 98Du7084, Nov. 26, 199). According to the foregoing, the real estate of this case is purchased under the name of this BB with the Plaintiff’s financing burden and the Plaintiff is the actual owner of this case’s title trust to B as the actual owner. As such, whether BB, the trustee of the Plaintiff, sold the real estate of this case without delegation or consent is examined

In full view of the following facts and circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the sale contract of June 22, 2007 for the real estate of this case was approved by the Plaintiff, the title truster, prior to the sale or ratification thereof after the conclusion of the sale contract, and was sold by the Plaintiff’s will by comprehensively taking into account the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the evidence Nos. 6, 6, 9, 12-1, 2, and 18:

" 가) ① 원고는 앞서 본 바와 같이 2004. 5. 5.경부터 수사기관에 자수한 2008.경까지 도피생활을 하였으나, 도피생활을 하는 중에도 주말이나 명절에는 이BB의 집이나 당시 원고가 거주하던 OO시 OO구 OO동 소재 KKK아파트에서 이BB와 함께 지내기도 하였던 사실, ② 원고는 자신의 실질적인 1인 회사였던 주식회사 GGG의 주식을 2006. 5. 30., 2006. 8. 21. 유상증자하면서 자신의 누나인 신LL, 원고의 측근인 최MM에게 각 유상증자 분의 15.38%, 원고 자신에게는 13.07%의 주식을 배정하고 고FF, 이BB, 김JJ, 최NN 등에게도 배정한 사실, ③ 원고는 주식회사 GGG과 마찬가지로 원고의 1인 회사였던 주식회사 II의 대표이사에 위 최MM을 선임하였고 그 주식도 위 최MM을 포함한 6인에게 배정한 사실, ④ 원고는 최MM에게 지시하여 매월 주식회사 II의 수익금 OOOO원을 이BB와 고FF에게 이BB의 생활비, 고FF의 판공비와 주식회사 GGG의 운영자금 명목으로 교부한 사실, ⑤ 원고는 이BB가 식당 영업을 할 수 있도록 이BB에게 OOOO원 상당의 자금을 지원하였고 이에 이BB가 2005. 12.경 OO시 OO구 OO동 275-1에서PPP숯불갈비'라는 상호의 식당을 개업하자 원고가 고FF에게 식당 영업을 도와주도록 부탁하였던 사실 등을 종합하여 보면, 원고는 도피생활 중에 가족 및 지인들과 격리되어 있었던 것이 아니라 주말과 공휴일 등에 가족들과 생활을 합께 하면서 스스로 재산 관리를 하거나 처인 이BB 또는 자신의 측근인 고FF, 최MM 등을 통하여 재산 관리를 하였으므로 이 사건 부동산을 포함한 자신의 재산 관리・처분 상태에 대하여도 잘 알고 있었을 것으로 봄이 타당하다.", 나) 또한 원고는 2007. 7. 3. 김QQ으로부터 OO시 OO면 OO리 40-21, 40-23 토지를 이 사건 매매대금 중 OOOO원으로 매수하여 갈은 날 고FF의 명의로 소유권이전등기를 경료한 다음, 2008. 11. 3. 위 각 토지에 관하여 최MM 명의로 소유권이전등기를 경료하여 이를 명의신탁하기도 하였다.

C) On April 5, 2010, the Plaintiff stated that, after receiving an investigation from a tax official on April 5, 2010, BB sold the instant real estate to KimCC on June 22, 2007, it approved LF to operate gas station business with the instant purchase price, etc.

D) The Plaintiff, despite being aware of the instant real estate sale, did not take such measures as resisting the fact of the instant sale and the use and amount used of the instant sales price, etc. against the BB and the MF, etc. or holding the responsibility for the instant sales price, before becoming aware of the internal relationship between BB and the MF.

2) We examine the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff does not constitute a person liable to pay capital gains tax on the instant real estate, since the Plaintiff’s use of the instant sales price and the high FF did not substantially belong to the Plaintiff.

① 앞서 본 바와 같이 명의신탁자인 원고가 이 사건 부동산을 자신의 의사에 따라 매도한 이상 이 사건 부동산의 매각에 따른 양도소둑을 사실상 지배, 관리, 처분할 수 있는 지위에 있었으므로 원고가 그에 따른 납세의무자라고 봄이 타당하고, 설령 원고의 주장과 같이 이 사건 매매대금 수령 후에 이BB와 고FF이 이 사건 매매대금을 횡령함으로써 원고가 그 이득을 누리지 못하는 사정이 발생하였다고 하더라도 그러한 사정은 이 사건 매매대금 상당의 이득이 이미 원고에게 귀속된 다음에 발생한 것으로서 명의신탁자가 신탁부동산을 사실상 지배, 관리, 처분할 수 있는 권한 범위 내에서 명의신탁자가 감수하여야 하는 위험 범위 내에 있다고 할 것이므로 양도소득의 사실상 귀속 여부를 판단함에 영향을 미친다고 보기 어려운 점, ② 원고는 이 사건 부동산의 매매계약 체결 당시에 도피생활을 하던 중이어서 이 사건 부동산을 비롯한 자산의 재산관리를 이BB와 고FF에게 위임하였고, 이에 따라 이 사건 매매대금 또한 이BB를 통하여 수령하게 되었던 점, ③ 여기에 을 제5, 9호증, 을 제20호종의 2의 각 기재 및 변론 전체의 취지에 의하면, 이 사건 매매대금 중 OOOO원은 2007. 6. 22. 이BB의 농협 계좌(OOO-OO-OOOOOO)에서 고FF의 부산은행 계좌(OOO-OO-OOOOOO-O)로 계좌 이체된 후 2007. 6. 29. 원고가 실질적으로 운영하는 주식회사 HH금속의 법인계좌 (OOOOOO-OO-OOOOOO)로 입금되었던 사실, 원고가 2010. 4. 5. 세무공무원으로부터 조사를 받으면서 이 사건 매매대금 중 OOOO원은 자신이 고FF에게 승인한 RR주유소의 건립비용으로 사용되었음을 스스로 인정한 사실이 인정되는 점, ④ 앞서 본 바와 같이 원고는 2007. 7. 3. 김QQ으로부터 OO시 OO면 OO리 소재 토지를 매수한 후 고FF(이후 최MM로 변경) 명의로 신탁하였는데 그 대금을 이 사건 매매대금 중 OOOO원으로 지급한 점, ⑤ 이BB는 이 사건 매매대금 일부를 원고와 공동생활에 필요한 생활비 등으로 사용하였을 것으로 보이는 점 등 제반사정을 종합하여 보면, 이 사건 매매대금은 원고에게 실제 귀속되었다고 봄이 타당하고, 이BB가 원고에게 일부 매매대금을 지급하지 않았다고 하여 달리 볼 것은 아니다.

3) We examine the argument on the duplicate tax investigation.

The Plaintiff’s assertion that “B” had been investigated on April 5, 2010 to examine the legality of the disposition of transfer income tax against BB upon the Plaintiff’s filing of objection on April 2, 2010. However, it is recognized that the Plaintiff, at the request of the Korean Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission, conducted an investigation on the purchase of the instant real estate from January 24, 201 to January 28, 201 (hereinafter “instant investigation”). However, the Plaintiff’s submission of 20 U.S. tax investigation on the instant real estate to the effect that it could be deemed that there was no clear evidence to acknowledge the existence of suspicion of tax evasion by 20 U.S. 16 U. 1, 201, see Supreme Court Decision 200 U.S. 16, supra. 201.

3. Conclusion

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