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

Cheong-gu Office

The phrase "118,069,440 won" in the same order is clear that it is a clerical error of "18,069,441 won", and thus the former is corrected later.

A. On June 29, 2005, the plaintiff and the non-party KimA 00 Eup 00 Risan from the non-party A to the 00 Eup 00 Eup 00.

The registration of transfer of ownership is completed on May 16, 2005 with respect to 1/2 shares in co-ownership among 19-11 forest land and 19,835 square meters (hereinafter referred to as "the forest of this case"). (The plaintiff 1/2 shares among the forest of this case shall be referred to as "the real estate of this case").

B. On November 19, 2007, the Plaintiff and Nonparty Gina completed the registration of ownership transfer for the entire forest of this case from the Plaintiff and Nonparty Gina on October 15, 2007 with respect to the entire forest of this case on November 19, 2007.

C. The Plaintiff reported and paid KRW 7,155,000 as capital gains tax calculated by applying the transfer value as KRW 150,000,000, and acquisition value as KRW 135,000, while filing a preliminary return on the tax base of capital gains tax on the instant real estate to the Defendant after the transfer as described in paragraph (b).

D. On October 1, 2013, the Defendant issued a correction and notification of KRW 118,069,441 (i.e., KRW 125,224,441 (i.e., KRW 125,224,41 - KRW 7,155,000) subtracting the Plaintiff already reported and paid from KRW 125,224,441 (i.e., KRW 125,224,41 - KRW 7,15,00) for the Plaintiff on the ground that the actual transfer value of the instant real estate was 265,00,000 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a petition for adjudication on December 27, 2013 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

B. April 8, 2014 was dismissed.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, 7, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including each number), the whole purport of oral argument

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although the Plaintiff acquired the instant real estate in the name of the Plaintiff in the position of the title trustee, since the economic profit from the acquisition of real estate belongs to the non-party 00 corporation (the non-party 1, the husband of the Plaintiff, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, and the non-party 1, the hereinafter referred to as the "non-party 1 corporation"), the Plaintiff’s disposition of the instant real

(b) Related statutes;

The entry in the attached Form is as specified in the relevant statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) In addition to the forest land of this case (Yongbuk-do 00 Eup 00, 19-11), Nonparty Jeong-A owned other nearby real estate as indicated below. However, the Plaintiff, the Nonparty Company, and the Nonparty Kim Jong-A acquired these real estate including the forest land of this case from Nonparty Jeong-A as indicated below, but thereafter transferred them to others as listed below.

(2) On the other hand, the plaintiff, the non-party company, and the non-party KimA had completed the registration of establishment of a neighboring 000 association on July 13, 2005, after completing the registration of ownership transfer in its name with respect to each of the above forests and fields.

(3) On the other hand, the plaintiff, the non-party company, and the non-party KimA had completed the registration of creation of superficies with the duration of 10 years for the whole forest as above on the same day as the registration of establishment of a neighboring forest on the same day.

was issued.

(4) At the time of acquisition by transfer of each of the above forests from AA, the acquisition price of each of the above lands was partially paid with the amount loaned from the association of 000 after the establishment of the right to collateral security.

(5) The non-party A, who is the final transferee of the instant forest, asserted in the investigation that he paid the seller the sum of KRW 530,000,000 to the purchase price of the instant forest. However, the amount remaining after being paid by means of check, etc. out of the purchase price of the instant forest that he/she would have paid was indicated in the following table.

(6) The non-party KimA, who was involved in the process of acquiring, developing, and transferring the above forests and fields, shall be present at this court as a witness, and (1) in relation to the process of acquiring the land, he was aware that the non-party KimA was aware that he had tried to change the purpose of using the factory of the non-party company in South AA and KimA for the purpose of transferring the factory of the non-party company, and that the non-party South A was the operator of the non-party company's factory; (2) in the process of acquiring the land, the plaintiff was only on the part of his own seller; and (3) in relation to the land acquisition fund, the plaintiff was aware that the non-party Kim Jong had paid part of the land to the seller; and (4) in relation to the land transfer circumstances, the witness tried to change the purpose of using part of the land to the factory site after acquiring the land, but the plaintiff did not have any other witness and the non-party witness at the time of transferring the above forest and field.

(7) The plaintiff is the wife of South A, and South A was the representative director of the non-party 00 corporation (the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, and after the closure of the business on March 31, 1999, South A is currently registered as the liquidator of the above company. Meanwhile, the non-party company (the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 198 from March 2, 201, and the representative director from December 2, 201

[Reasons for Recognition] Each of the above evidence, Gap evidence of Nos. 3 through 17, Eul evidence of Nos. 3 and 4, witness KimA's testimony

D. Determination

In the event that a title truster transfers real estate to a third party and reverts income from such transfer to the title truster under the substance over form principle, if the title truster, who is the subject of the transfer, belongs to the title truster, the person liable to pay the relevant capital gains tax under the substance over form principle, does not become a taxpayer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Nu6387, Oct. 10, 1997; 2003Da30616, Dec. 12, 2003). Whether a certain income is subject to income tax is deemed as real income from an economic perspective, and it is sufficient to determine that there is a real income and that there is a ability to pay, and the legal assessment of the cause relationship in which the income is derived is lawful and effective. Thus, even if a title truster in good faith and the title truster actually reverts the ownership of the real estate to the title truster under the proviso to Article 4(2) of the former Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name (amended by Act No. 10234, Mar. 31, 201, 201). 201).

In light of the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff, a title trustee under the principle of substantial taxation under Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, concluded a title trust agreement with the Plaintiff, the wife of the instant forest and its surrounding forest, and purchased the instant real estate in the Plaintiff’s name in the process of purchasing the instant forest and its neighboring forest for the purpose of factory site to relocate the factory of the Nonparty Company. Since the sale price of the instant real estate seems to have been actually reverted to the Nonparty Company, even if the ownership of the instant real estate was reverted to the Plaintiff, and was transferred to another person, the Plaintiff, a title trustee under the principle of substantial taxation under Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, is not a taxpayer of capital gains tax on the instant real estate.

Therefore, the Defendant deemed the Plaintiff as the taxpayer of the capital gains tax on the instant real estate.

The instant disposition is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.