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

A. The ○○○○ (name before the opening of a name): (a) had a performance planning○○○, a performance-based performance-based performance-based performance-based performance-based performance-based performance-based performance-based performance-based performance-based performance; and (b) had failed to pay national taxes of KRW 123,371,27

B. On August 29, 2011, U.S., the U.S.O. completed the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer (hereinafter referred to as “the provisional registration of this case”) on the real estate (hereinafter referred to as “the instant real estate”) under the name of the Defendant, a parent-child on the same day (hereinafter referred to as “the instant real estate”) on August 29, 201. [In the absence of dispute over recognition, the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4-1, 1, 2, 15-1, 7-1, 7-2, 2, 1, 7-1, 7-2, and 2. The parties’ assertion and judgment are as follows.

The Plaintiff asserted that the contract to sell and purchase the instant real estate between ○○ and the Defendant was null and void as a false declaration of agreement or becomes subject to cancellation as a contract under Article 35(4) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and that the Defendant received a provisional registration from ○○○○○ upon the repayment of loan obligation to the Defendant, by means of a false promise to sell and purchase the instant real estate in collusion with the Defendant. As such, the Plaintiff asserted that the contract to sell and purchase the instant real estate between ○○ and the Defendant constitutes a false declaration of agreement.

B. Determination

(1) The Defendant’s parent-child relationship with the above ○○○○, a taxpayer pursuant to Article 18-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and the fact that the above Defendant and the above ○○○○, concluded a contract for the pre-sale and provisional registration between the above Defendant and the above ○○○, within one year prior to the statutory due date of the Value-Added Tax and the Global Income Tax Act as seen above. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the above pre-sale and provisional registration contract pursuant to Article 35(4)2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes is legally presumed

Therefore, the above purchase and sale reservation and provisional registration contract between the defendant and the ○○○ shall be deemed null and void as a false declaration of agreement, and the period of this case, which was made based on the invalid contract, shall also be null and void.

(2) As to this, the defendant defenses that he completed provisional registration under the pre-sale contract of this case for the purpose of repaying the loan claims against ○○○, according to the evidence Nos. 1, 200,000 won on December 29, 2006, and the defendant remitted to ○○○○ on June 10, 2007, KRW 4,000 on August 28, 2008, KRW 10,000 on August 26, 2009, KRW 80,000 on August 26, 200, KRW 80,000 on December 30, 200, and KRW 10,000 on March 1, 2010, KRW 10 on March 20, 205, and KRW 300 on March 25, 205.

However, such circumstance alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant and U.S.O. reside in the same place; the defendant's income and economic history for the above period; the sales price of this case is KRW 49,000,000,000, which is the actual transaction tax at the time; and the defendant did not take any measures after the end of February 28, 2012, even though the period during which the defendant could express his/her intention to complete the sale and purchase of this case was from February 28, 2012, it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant lent each of the above money to U.S. ○, or entered into a contract to purchase and sell this case as a repayment or a security for loans; and there is no evidence supporting this. Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.