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

The reasoning for this Court is that the plaintiff brought a new action against the court of first instance.

(1) Except for any addition of any determination with respect to the head of the

Therefore, it is accepted by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination as to the assertion that the instant disposition is null and void since it goes against the relevant criminal judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In the relevant criminal case, it was revealed that BB hot spring was not a title trust of the land of this case to the Plaintiff, and the judgment of partial innocence was rendered (OO District Court Decision 2004Kahap82, 2004Kahap97, 2004Kahap621, Nov. 25, 2005). However, the tax authority did not impose a new taxation that reflects the result of the said judgment after deeming the Plaintiff as a title trustee. Therefore, the instant disposition is null and void.

B. Determination

Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 7010, Dec. 30, 2003) Article 41-2

Paragraph 1 (Article 45-2(1) of the current Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act) The provision on deemed donation shall be imposed.

applicable only to the case of a corporation, and in such a case, the Corporate Tax Act

Since there is no provision to include in the Corporate Tax Act, "value of assets received without compensation" under the Corporate Tax Act;

as to whether the assets are included in this chapter, the substance over form provided for in Article 4 of the same Act.

As a matter of principle, registration shall be made with the name of the corporation, and registration shall be made with the name of the corporation.

The title trust can not be deemed to include assets with registration, change of entry, etc., and the tax avoidance

(1) If the trustee is not a profit-making corporation, a gift tax shall be levied on the property deemed to be donated.

Even if so, the principle of no taxation without representation and the principle of substantial taxation cannot be viewed differently (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002.6.).

11. See Supreme Court Decision 2001Du4269 delivered on April 1, 200

Therefore, if the head of the Suwon District Tax Office imposed a taxation on the premise that the Plaintiff had received title trust on the instant land from BB Hot Spring without compensation, the said provision of the laws and regulations as above.

It is illegal to violate the legal principles.

However, according to the facts acknowledged earlier, the head of the Suwon District Tax Office imposed corporate tax of KRW 00 in the business year 2002 on the Plaintiff, deeming the instant land from BB hot spring as the gift-title trust property free of charge, and then, BBB in a special relationship with the Plaintiff.

It appears that the land of this case was acquired at KRW 1 billion in the market price of KRW 00,000,000.

H The acquisition value of the land of this case shall be included in the gross income and the above one billion won in the deductible expenses, respectively, for the 2002 business year.

It may be known that the instant disposition was taken to reduce corporate tax to KRW 91,242,140.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the instant disposition was made on the premise that the Plaintiff was merely under title trust from the BB hot spring.

In addition, according to the statement in Eul evidence No. 5-3, the O District Court delivered on November 25, 2005 2004 High Court Decision 2004

82, 2004 Highest97, 2004 Highest 621 The facts charged that the CCC, the representative director of BB hot spring, was acquitted on the grounds of the judgment, is the tax base and amount of corporate tax in 2002 of BB hot spring.

In doing so, in selling the land purchased from DD with no registration to a third party, the remaining income amount; and

The amount of KRW 00,000 was evaded by omitting the corporate tax from the amount of income.

J. BB Hot Springs are 00,000 corporate tax by fraudulent or other unlawful means as above.

The fact that "CCC et al. was evaded", and the above court "CCC et al. was 345 million won of corporate income."

The fact that the amount of corporate tax evaded by omitting the source of tax shall be calculated not as KRW 00,000,000,000,000,000,000 is not guilty (in the same judgment, the judgment of conviction was pronounced as to the evasion of corporate tax, such as CCC, etc.) may be recognized.

Thus, the facts and legal principles that were judged not guilty in the above criminal judgment are not directly related to the legality of the disposition of this case. Thus, the disposition of this case is the above criminal board.

The decision is not inconsistent with the decision.

In the end, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit without further review on the remaining points.

3. Conclusion

The claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall conclude this conclusion.

As such, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.