2. All costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendants.

The disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 728,596,210 on April 20, 2007 against the Plaintiff by the head of ○○ Tax Office and the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 72,859,620 on April 20, 207 against the Plaintiff by the head of ○○ Metropolitan City ○○○○ Tax Office, each of which is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The plaintiff's request shall be dismissed.

On May 21, 2002, the director of the tax office of ○○○○○○○○○○○○, 1526-9, and 496,000,000 won, and on June 15, 2002, he purchased between 1526-10,000 and 330,000,000 won (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant land”) and carried out a commercial development project on May 23, 2006, he purchased the instant land as KRW 6,841,905,019, which was mutually changed to an enterprise of △○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, 1526-9,000 won, and notified the Plaintiff of the price of the transfer income tax to 205,000,000 won until February 13, 207.

[Reasons for Recognition: Each entry in Gap evidence 2-1, 2, and Eul evidence 1]

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

(a) a master of the Party;

Defendant ○○○ Tax Office asserts that the Plaintiff is obligated to pay capital gains tax in accordance with the disposition of capital gains tax, because the Plaintiff transferred the instant land to the Plaintiff according to the circumstances of the above disposition. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff is obligated to pay capital gains tax in accordance with the disposition of capital gains tax. As the Defendant asserts, the Plaintiff has prepared a business transfer agreement and a settlement agreement stating that the Plaintiff will transfer the instant land to the △△ enterprise and pay the capital gains tax, but in fact, the instant land was not transferred between May 23, 2006 and February 13, 2007, as shown in such documents. ② The instant land is owned by the Plaintiff’s husband, and the Plaintiff cannot impose capital gains tax on the Plaintiff as far as it is only the trustee, even if the Plaintiff transferred it to the △△ enterprise, and even after the imposition of capital gains tax, the instant disposition of capital gains tax is cancelled on June 26, 2007.

(b) Fact of recognition;

1) On June 2002, the instant land had been registered for ownership transfer in the Plaintiff’s future. Of the purchase price of KRW 5.45 million, KRW 4.2 billion, the purchase price was paid KRW 4.2 billion (the sum of KRW 2.5 billion loaned under the Plaintiff’s name and KRW 1.7 billion if the loan was received under the name of ParkA) loaned from the Central Agricultural Cooperative as security on the instant land. The purchase price, including down payment, the remainder of the purchase price, acquisition tax, and registration tax, etc., including down payment, were appropriated from the Plaintiff’s husband’s capital.

2) On September 26, 2002, the Plaintiff obtained a construction permit for the construction of a 18 foot shopping mall on the instant land. Around January 2005, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the construction of a △ integrated construction and a construction project on the condition that the sales revenue was preferentially appropriated for the construction cost, but the sales revenue was not properly made, and thereby, the △ integrated construction abandoned the construction project.

3) 원고는 2006. 5. 23. 이 사건 상가건축에 관한 도급계약을 ●●건설과 체결하였 고, 원고와 ●●건설, 박AA 등은 이 사건 상가개발사업을 추진하기 위하여 ♡♡은행 으로부터 자금을 대출받기로 하고 이를 위하여 ♡♡은행과 다음과 같은 내용의 대출 및 사업약정서를 작성하였다(이른바 프로젝트 파이낸싱을 위한 약정서이다).

4) 원고는 위와 같이 ♡♡은행으로부터 대출받는 과정에서 2006. 7. 11.경 상가신축 에 대한 건축주 명의를 박AA이 대표이사로 있는 ☆☆기업으로 변경한다고 신고하였 고 이에 따라 건축주 명의가 ☆☆기업으로 변경되었다.

5) 원고는 위와 같은 대출약정에 따라 2006. 7. 13. 이 사건 토지에 관하여 제1순위 수익자를 ♡♡은행으로 하는 담보신탁계약을 체결하고 이 사건 토지를 한국토지신탁에 신탁하였다.

6) In addition, 4.95 billion won out of the initial loan 5.5 billion won paid to enterprises in e.g., e., e., e., e., e., e., 4. the secured debt of the central agricultural cooperative in relation to the instant land (a loan was KRW 4.2 billion in total, but a loan was KRW 1.7 billion in total, but it was used to repay the accumulated interest on June 24, 2006 in order to repay the accumulated interest on the instant land as a security for the instant land).

7) Meanwhile, there is a contract under the name of the Plaintiff on May 23, 2006 and the enterprise of △△△△△△△△△△△△△ (Evidence A) that the Plaintiff transferred the instant commercial building development project, including the ownership of the instant land, to △△△△, and the enterprise of △△△△△△△, should pay the land price of 5,625,078,000 won before the commencement of the sale of the commercial building and the expenses incurred in the project in addition to the land price. (No. 28) In the course of the investigation into the Plaintiff on the commencement of the investigation into the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s transfer of the instant commercial building to the enterprise of △△△△△△△△, the Plaintiff’s transfer of the land price of KRW 1,891,905,00,00,000 to KRW 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 before the settlement of the account transfer amount of KRW 1.3.

8) After that, based on the above business transfer agreement, settlement agreement, etc., Defendant ○○ Tax Office imposed and notified the transfer income tax of this case on the Plaintiff’s land in 6,841,905,019, based on the grounds that the land owned by the Plaintiff was transferred to the △△ enterprise, and accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an appeal seeking revocation of the disposition of the transfer income tax of this case on the ground that the receipts and remittance confirmations were prepared in the name of the representative director of the △△△△ enterprise, the representative director of the △△△△ enterprise, and the settlement amount of KRW 1,891,905,019, which included the contents of the transfer of the instant land in response thereto, were returned to the △△ enterprise.

9) 한편 ♡♡은행은 이 사건 상가개발사업에 관하여 2008. 8. 13. 추가로 30억 원을 ☆☆기업에 대출하여 주었고 2008. 11. 4. 이 사건 상가건물이 완공되었으며, 원고는 2009. 4. 13. 이 사건 토지에 관하여 한국토지신탁 앞으로 한 신탁 등기를 말소시킨 다음 이 사건 토지를 5,652,078,000원에 2009. 3. 13. ☆☆기업에 매도하였음을 원인으로 ☆☆기업 앞으로 소유권이전등기를 경료하여 주었고, 위와 같은 매도가액을 양도가액 으로 신고하면서 양도소득세 2,448,000원과 주민세 244,800원을 납부하였다.

[Ground of Recognition: Evidence of Evidence of Nos. 1 through 9, Evidence No. 17 through 34, Evidence No. 45-1, Evidence No. 52, Evidence No. 1, 15, 16, and 19 of Evidence A of No. 52]

C. Determination

1) On May 23, 2006, the head of Defendant ○○ Tax Office transferred the instant land to an enterprise in △△△△△, and on February 13, 2007, imposed capital gains tax on the Plaintiff on the ground that the transfer price of 6,841,905,019 was fully paid until February 13, 2007. We examine whether the Plaintiff transferred the instant land at the time when the head of Defendant ○○ Tax Office claims.

2) If we examine only the following circumstances revealed in the facts of recognition as seen earlier, it may be deemed that the Plaintiff transferred the instant land to the enterprise of △△△ in Korea at the time when Defendant ○○ Head of the tax office asserted.

즉, 원고와 ☆☆기업 사이에 작성된 2006. 5. 23. 사업양도약정서가 존재하며 여기에 는 원고가 이 사건 토지를 포함한 이 사건 사업권 일체를 ☆☆기업에 양도한다는 점, ☆☆기업은 이 사건 토지대금으로 5,625,078,000원을 상가 분양개시 전에 지급하고 토지대금 외에 사업에 소요되었던 비용을 사업 준공 전에 지급한다는 점이 기재되어 있고, 위와 같은 약정에 맞추어 ☆☆기업이 최종 지급할 잔금을 1,891,905,019원으로 정산하는 내용의 2007. 2. 13.자 정산합의서가 존재하며, 실제 ☆☆기업이 ♡♡은행으로부터 대출받은 돈 중 49억 5,000만 원이 이 사건 토지의 담보대출금 변제에 사용되었고 정산금 1,891,905,019원은 ☆☆기업으로부터 원고의 예금계좌로 이체되었다. 그리고 2006. 7.경 이 사건 상가개발사업에 관련된 상가의 건축주 명의가 ☆☆기업으로 변경 되었다.

3) 그러나, 앞서 본 인정사실에 변론 전체의 취지를 보태어 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정 즉,① 원고, 박AA, ☆☆기업, ●●건설, ♡♡은행 등이 이 사건 상가개발사업에 관한 대출약정 과정에서 작성한 2006. 7. 13.자 사업 및 대출약정서에 의하면, 원고는 이 사건 토지의 소유자 지위에서 공동시행자로 약정에 참여하면서 이 사건 상가건축과 정에서 계속 소유자의 지위를 유지하기로 하였고, 상가를 분양하는 단계에서도 상가공급자로 날인하도록 하고 있으며, ♡♡은행의 대출금 중 49억 5,000만 원은 이 사건 토지에 관한 기존 근저당권자언 중앙농업협동조합의 대출금 변제에 사용될 뿐이고 나머지 대출금도 주로 공사비로 용처가 지정되어 있으며 전BB에게 토지대금으로 지급될 부분은 없고, 다만 ♡♡은행 대출금 120억 원에 대한 담보를 위하여 이 사건 토지를 토지신탁회사에 담보신탁하기로 하였던 점을 분명하게 알 수 있는 점,②원고는 위와 같은 약정에 따라 이 사건 상가건축이 진행되는 동안 이 사건 토지를 한국토지신탁에 신탁하여 두었던 점,③그리고 이 사건 상가건축이 완공된 다음인 2009. 4.경에 이르러서야 신탁등기를 말소하고 건축주인 ☆☆기업에 소유권이전등기를 경료하여 주었던 점 등을 보면, 원고는 2006. 7. 13. ☆☆기업과의 사이에 원고가 이 사건 토지를 소유한 채 이 사건 토지를 상가개발사업 부지로 제공하여 상가개발사업을 공동으로 시행하기로 약정하였을 뿐, 원고가 2006. 5. 23. 내지 2007. 2. 13.경까지 사이에 이 사건 토지를 ☆☆기업에 양도하였다거나 원고에게 양도로 인한 소득이 있었다고 볼 수 없고, 달리 이를 인정할 만한 증거도 없다(앞서 본 여러 사정에 비추어 보면, 이 사건 토지는 상가건물이 완공된 다음에 양도된 것이라고 봄이 상당하다).

4) Therefore, Defendant ○○ Tax Office’s imposition of the instant capital gains tax on May 23, 2006 on the ground that the Plaintiff agreed to take up the instant land as an enterprise of ○○○○ Tax Office in 6,841,905,019, and agreed to obtain gains from transfer by paying the price between February 13, 2007. The imposition of the instant capital gains tax is unlawful, and the imposition of the resident tax to be imposed on Defendant ○○ Metropolitan City Head of ○○○○○ Office, which is premised on the existence of the capital gains tax, also

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendants should be accepted in its entirety on the grounds of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the defendants' appeal is dismissed in its entirety on the grounds of its ground. It is so decided as per Disposition.