2. The imposition of value-added tax against the Plaintiff on January 1, 2013 by the Defendant is revoked.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the statement on the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff is merely a business operator under the name of "AA wood house", and in fact this BB is 00

Even if a house is newly built and transferred on the ground of 00 00 Do 89 Do, the nominal business operator

The instant disposition imposing value-added tax on the instant land and housing transfer, which is merely the Plaintiff, is in violation of the substance over form principle.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Relevant legal principles

Article 14 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "income, profit, property, act or transaction which is subject to taxation"

If the ownership is merely nominal and there is another person to whom it actually belongs, the principle of substantial taxation is declared by stipulating that the person to whom it actually belongs shall be liable for tax payment. Therefore, if there is a separate person who substantially controls and manages the taxable subject to taxation, such as income, profit, property, act, transaction, etc. different from the nominal person, the nominal person on account of type and appearance shall not be the person to whom it actually belongs, but the person who actually controls and manages the taxable subject to taxation pursuant to the principle of substantial taxation shall be the person to whom it is the person to whom it is liable for tax payment. Furthermore, the determination of whether it constitutes such a case shall be made by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as the details of the use of the name, the degree and scope

In principle, the tax authority's liability to prove the existence and tax base of the tax requirement.

A. The burden of proof is imposed even in cases where the title of transaction, etc. and the actual owner of the transaction, etc. are different, barring any special circumstance, such as where there is a separate legal provision converting the burden of proof. However, as long as the tax authority imposed tax on the business title in view of the business title as the actual owner, it is necessary for the business title holder to assert and prove that the ownership of transaction, etc. and the actual owner of the transaction, etc. are different. In such a case, the need for proof is sufficient to the extent that the judge made a reasonable doubt about the fulfillment of the taxation requirement. As a result, if it is unclear whether the substance of the transaction, etc. belongs to the nominal owner, and it becomes impossible for the judge to have conviction, then the disadvantage therefrom is attributable to the tax authority that bears the ultimate burden of proof (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Du9935, May 16, 201

(d) Facts of recognition;

the whole purport of the pleading in each of the evidence mentioned above and the evidence set forth in Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 4 (including paper numbers)

Joints, the following facts are recognized:

1) On March 2001, the Plaintiff and KimB (her husband of the Plaintiff) who represented the Plaintiff and KimB (her husband of the Plaintiff) on behalf of the Plaintiff

land at 00:00 00 :00 - 89-8 and 89-9 -

The land in this case was provided to BB, and this B entered into a contract under which the Plaintiff and KimB shall pay KRW 320 million out of the sale price to the Plaintiff and KimB as the land price (hereinafter referred to as "the contract in this case", and the construction of new housing Nos. 4 in this case was referred to as "the construction of new housing Nos. 4 in this case").

2) AB shall complete the instant construction project around August 2002 at most stages of completion.

In the event of a shortage of the construction cost and the construction cost undertaken under the conditions of the subsequent payment, the Plaintiff, and KimB made and delivered a letter of waiver (hereinafter referred to as the “written waiver of this case”) to the effect that they would withdraw the investment, and that the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, and the KimB would waive the construction of this case, and this BB, the Plaintiff, and the KimB stated in the back of the written waiver of this case as follows: “(20,000 won, not later than the end of August) shall be sold or the funds would be 120,000,000 won in the face of the written waiver of this case, the waiver of this case shall be null and void, and the agreement shall also be

3) B, the Plaintiff, and the KimB made up a letter of renunciation of this case, and held the Plaintiff liable for the obligations related to the construction on the part of the Plaintiff. Meanwhile, thisB borrowed KRW 150 million from Kim Jong-moo on September 17, 2002, and KimCC guaranteed the repayment of the above loan, and KimCC guaranteed this loan.

B The receipt of the said money in lieu of B and the notification from September 17, 2002 to September 19, 2002 by this B.

The construction cost was paid to the construction business operators concerned.

4) AB shall establish and operate a fund equivalent to KRW 150,000,000,000,000 from September 17, 2002 as above.

After the payment was made, the construction was completed by resumption of the remaining construction work).

5) On the other hand, the business that B prepared a letter of waiver of this case and delivered to the Plaintiff and KimB

In August 6, 2002, the plaintiff, KimB, KimCC, and KimD (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the plaintiff et al.").

(B) At the beginning of December 2004 through early 2005, the construction of a new house of 89-8, i.e., e., "A wood farm" was completed, but it is unclear whether the construction of this case was completed in its entirety.

Even after the commencement of the instant construction project, the BB did not immediately report the closure of the business to the said enterprise, and completed the report on the closure of April 5, 2007.

6) This case’s case’s case to the Plaintiff and KimB after completion of the instant construction.

Although it was intended to pay KRW 320,000,000 for the land price, the sale was not made properly, and with respect to the newly constructed house, registration of preservation of ownership was made in the name of KimCC and the Plaintiff, the owner of the land of this case, and transferred to others.

7) This B had not been properly sold after the completion of the said housing, and the Plaintiff and KimB.

Although the instant land price was not paid, it asserted that the Plaintiff and KimCC received the land equivalent to KRW 60 million at the market price from the Plaintiff and KimCC in return for the construction of the said housing, and that the Plaintiff and KimCC were accused of embezzlement, etc.

8) KimCC, on October 5, 2012, the director of the high tax office assigned on August 10, 2005 by the Plaintiff on August 10, 2005

The transfer income tax shall be paid to the Plaintiff for the instant taxable property (hereinafter referred to as “instant taxable property”).

45,175,811 won is taxed and real estate owned by the plaintiff is seized, November 6, 2012

In light of the fact that the search for the above attachment was made an inquiry about the method of releasing the above attachment, the process was consulted with the Highyang Tax Office's transfer income tax and the Kim Dong-dong, the leader of the Kim Dong-dong, and the business registration was completed in the name of the plaintiff et al., the transfer of the subject real estate of this case was not subject to the transfer income tax but is highly likely to be subject to the business income tax.

9) 김CC은 김QQ과 상담을 마친 후 김QQ이 작성해 준 원고와 자신 명의의 확

After signing and sealing on the letter (Evidence B No. 3) and submitting the letter of high-sea tax secretary. The letter of confirmation stated that "the plaintiff acquired the above land for the purpose of sale by newly building a house on the land above the above land after completing the business registration, and as long as the plaintiff newly constructed a house on the ground after completing the business registration, it constitutes business income."

E. Determination

In light of the above legal principles, the following facts recognized by comprehensively taking into account the facts acknowledged earlier are as follows:

(1) 100 million won by the end of August 2002 of this case, in light of the circumstances, i.e., the written waiver of this case.

However, in light of the fact that B continued to implement the construction work after preparing for the issue of construction cost up to September 17, 2009 and resolving the issue of construction cost, it is highly probable that the effect of the letter of waiver of this case was fulfilled on the back, and ② in light of the circumstances leading up to the preparation of the certificate (certificate) No. 3 (certificate), it is difficult to believe the contents of this case as they are true, and ③ BB is difficult to believe the contents of this case in fact.

Even after the completion of construction of housing on the ground of the instant land, it seems that the Plaintiff was in direct charge of the sales business, and it appears that the Plaintiff and KimB were unable to pay the price of the instant land, and that the Plaintiff and KimB were demanding the settlement of the construction cost invested after waiver of the sales business and the Plaintiff, etc.'s business registration under the trade name of "AA wood House" and filed a value-added tax return under the name of the said company. However, in full view of the fact that the Plaintiff, etc., as the above company's nominal owner, could have reported the amount disbursed for the construction cost by treating it as the purchase price and instead reported it as the actual business owner, the Plaintiff is merely the owner of the said land at 000 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 - 89 - in order to receive the price of the relevant land. In fact, there is a lack of evidence to recognize the Plaintiff as the actual business owner of the instant A wood Housing.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and the court of first instance which has concluded otherwise.

Since a judgment is unfair, it is so decided as per Disposition.