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

Cheong-gu Office

The imposition of OOO (including additional tax) imposed on the Plaintiff on October 1, 2011 by the Defendant shall be revoked.

A. On January 29, 1983, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the Plaintiff, CB (the father of the Plaintiff), CB (the external third village of the Plaintiff), SongCC (the external third village of the Plaintiff), SongDD (the external third village of the Plaintiff), Song EE (the birth of the Plaintiff), and private EE (the birth of the Plaintiff), the ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff was completed on January 29, 1983 with respect to 1/5 shares of 1/5 shares among the land of 136-1 forest land, 136-4 square meters, 138 square meters prior to 136-4, 136-13, 136-15 forest land, 136-15 square meters and 126 square meters prior to 136-16, respectively.

The shares of the SongCC were transferred to the RedF and SongG due to the death of May 25, 2004, and the shares of the privateB were transferred to the public H on November 12, 2006, respectively.

B. On March 17, 2008, the Plaintiff prepared a written confirmation that “I would not raise any legal and economic objection to the instant case, as the Plaintiff sold the shares of the Plaintiff as a co-owner of each of the instant lands and received OOO members from the Plaintiff.” and paid OO members to BOD.

C. The Plaintiff, on behalf of other co-owners on the same day, sold each of the instant land to OOO or building on land (the Plaintiff’s sole ownership) to the KOO or the KOO, respectively, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 29, 2008 with respect to each of the instant land and building on its own.

D. (1) On July 6, 2011, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the tax results investigation on the ground that “SOC donated the Plaintiff a gift of KRW 00,000,000 after deducting KRW 00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

(2) On this basis, the Plaintiff filed a request for pre-assessment review, and the Defendant rendered a decision on September 6, 201, on the basis of the confirmation document of SongD that “the shares of the principal in each of the instant land are 1/5, such as the real estate registration register.”

E. On October 1, 201, the Defendant decided and notified the Plaintiff of the OOO (including additional tax) of gift tax (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

F. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal on December 30, 201, but was dismissed by the Tax Tribunal on November 2, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 8, 19, 20 (including each number), evidence Nos. 26-1, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff, the privateB, the SongCC, and the Civil EE, each of the instant lands under title trust with the Defendant, and paid OOOE to SongD under the condition that they faithfully cooperate with the transfer procedure. Therefore, the instant disposition that was based on the premise that the Plaintiff was owned by the Plaintiff and the gift was made is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) On August 20, 1991, the Plaintiff distributed to the other co-owners, except SongD, the purchase price OOOOOOO-dong 136-31 square meters, 136-30 square meters, 105 square meters, 136-21 square meters, 136-21 square meters, 136-1 square meters, and 136-1 square meters of land, and the sales price OOOO for part of each of the instant land.

receiver

Date of Payment

Amount

Method of payment

Details

OOO

Cash

Contract deposit

CH

OOO

Cita Bank

(O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O)

Hong FF

OOO

National Bank

(OOO-O-O-OOOO)

SongGG

OOO

Bank of Korea

(OO-O-O-OOOO)

Transmitt.D

OOO

Cash

(The plaintiff's substitute receipt)

Civil EE

OOO

Foreign Exchange Bank

(O-O-O-O-O-O)

OOO

Agricultural Cooperatives

(O-O-O-OOOO)

Balance

OOO

Agricultural Cooperatives

(O-O-O-OOOO)

CH

OOO

Cita Bank

(O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O)

Hong FF

OOO

National Bank

(OOO-O-O-OOOO)

SongGG

OOO

Bank of Korea

(OO-O-O-OOOO)

Civil EE

OOO

Foreign Exchange Bank

(O-O-O-O-O-O)

OOO

National Bank

(OOO-O-O-OOOO)

Balance

CH

OOO

Cita Bank

(O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O)

Hong FF

OOO

National Bank

(OOO-O-O-OOOO)

SongGG

OOO

Bank of Korea

(OO-O-O-OOOO)

Civil EE

OOO

Foreign Exchange Bank

(O-O-O-O-O-O)

OOO

Agricultural Cooperatives

(O-O-O-OOOO)

Total

OOO

(2) The second intersection paid the purchase price of each of the instant lands as follows.

(3) On August 23, 2010, Songwon submitted a written confirmation as follows:

On 1982, the above land was acquired by 1/5 jointly by 5 persons, including her relative residents B, SongCC, Plaintiff, and E for the purpose of investment, and thereafter, the land needs for the purpose of the Plaintiff’s business (motor vehicle maintenance project site, etc.) so that the land can be used free of charge. During the holding period of the instant land, the Plaintiff used and managed the said land, and the transfer duties were delegated to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff did not participate in the transaction contract, and the owner did not participate in the contract. The real estate sales contract was first seen before the commencement of the tax investigation, and the transfer proceeds for the principal’s share was known to OO (excluding taxes such as transfer income tax, resident tax, etc., and taxes, and the remainder of the amount of taxes paid to OOO on March 3, 2009, and the spouse deposit to OOO and the head of the Tong.

In addition, the return and payment of capital gains tax are handled by the plaintiff on behalf of the plaintiff, he is not aware of this content, and he receives OOO won after paying related taxes, etc.

(4) The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Songwon District Court (2012Gahap1682) against Songwon District Court (2012Gahap1682) stating that “one-five shares of each of the instant lands were trusted in trust, and that “OOOO was liable for nonperformance of the agreement by stating that he/she is a share holder at the tax office in the first place, and ② because it was not anticipated that gift tax will be imposed after the purchase and sale, the Plaintiff was cancelled the agreement as a mistake and paid OOOOO KRW to the original state.” However, the lower court (2012Na96160) lost on October 18, 2012, and rendered a judgment dismissing the appeal on June 27, 2013 from Seoul High Court (2012Na96160).

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 7, 26-2, 43, 52-2, 5, 6, 7, and 5 of Evidence Nos. 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

In general, in a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of a disposition imposing tax, the burden of proof on the facts requiring taxation exists on the person imposing tax. However, in a case where facts are revealed in light of the empirical rule in the course of a specific lawsuit, unless it is proven that the other party is inappropriate to apply the empirical rule, it cannot be readily concluded that the pertinent disposition imposing tax is an unlawful disposition that lacks the taxation requirement (see Supreme Court Decisions 2002Du6392, Nov. 13, 2002; 2006Du13831, May 29, 2008). Meanwhile, even if it is not bound by the facts recognized in the judgment on other civil cases, etc., even if it is not bound by the judgment on other civil cases, etc., the facts already established in the relevant civil case cannot be rejected without reasonable grounds (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da30703, Nov. 27, 2011).

(2) On March 17, 2008, when the ownership transfer registration for real estate has been completed, the registrant is presumed to have acquired ownership for not only a third party, but also for the former owner based on legitimate grounds for registration. Thus, the grounds for the invalidation should be proved in the dispute. Whether the plaintiff, the civilianB, the SongCC, and the SongD bears each amount of the burden, how how much it was done, and if the title trust for 1/5 shares out of the land of this case was made to the SongD as the plaintiff's assertion, there is no evidence verifying the reasons for the title trust. Thus, the disposition shall be deemed to be owned by SongD according to the presumption of registration. ② There is no statement about title trust: there is no statement about the title trust; rather, it is considerably large that SongD is a co-owned share holder; ③ it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff did not have any other evidence to acknowledge that the title trust was made to the extent that the title trust was returned to the plaintiff in this case.

3. Conclusion

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