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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s transfer income tax for the Plaintiff on January 5, 2010 309,847,000 for the transfer income tax of 2006.

this chapter confirms that the disposition is null and void.

가. 등기부상 원고 소유로 되어 있던 별지 기재 ◌◌ ○○시 ◌◌읍 ○○리 860-12임야 1,604㎡외 17필지(이하 이 사건 토지)는 2006. 12. 4. 임의경매를 통해 소외 ◇◇◇◇홀딩스 주식회사(이하 소외 회사)에 경락되었으나, 원고는 양도소득세를 신고하지 않았다.

B. On January 5, 2010, the Defendant at the successful bid price the transfer value of the instant land to the Plaintiff.

1,662,11,00 won, acquisition value was calculated by the value converted into the standard market price, and the imposition of capital gains tax of 309,847,510 won for the year 2006 was made (hereinafter the instant disposition).

C. The plaintiff did not go through the pre-trial procedure.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s main defense

The defendant defense that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful because the plaintiff did not go through the procedure of the previous trial. However, as long as the plaintiff asserts the invalidity of the disposition of this case, the defendant's defense of the present safety is without merit.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff, operated by AA and her husband BB, on December 2, 2002, toCC Co., Ltd.

On June 10, 200, KRW 150,000, and KRW 400,000,000 respectively, and invested KRW 450,000,000 on September 10, 203. The Plaintiff lent KRW 200,000,000 to BB on January 10, 205, on the instant land owned by AA for the purpose of securing the above loan and investment loan claims, and at the same time, obtained a right to collateral security on the instant land owned by AA, and at the same time, obtained a registration of the right to claim ownership transfer based on a pre-sale.

BB’s failure to pay the above amount, the Plaintiff completed the principal registration based on the provisional registration on August 12, 2005 with respect to the instant real estate, but AA brought a lawsuit that the said principal registration is null and void. Therefore, as long as the said principal registration is null and void, the instant land does not have any ownership of the Plaintiff, and thus, the instant disposition taken on the premise that the instant land was transferred to the non-party company on the premise that the said land was transferred to the non-party company, is null and void due to its defect.

(b) Fact of recognition;

1) Details of the alteration of rights on the instant land

From July 15, 2004, AA owned the instant land, which was set up a collateral security right in the name of the △△△ Savings Bank. On January 10, 2005, the Plaintiff registered the establishment of a collateral security right and the right to claim the transfer of ownership in the future of the Plaintiff. Meanwhile, on August 12, 2005, the Plaintiff completed the principal registration based on the above provisional registration. Accordingly, on December 4, 2006, the instant land was adjudicated by the Nonparty Company in the auction procedure to enforce the senior collateral security right in the above bank.

2) Details of the relevant lawsuit

① On August 22, 2005, AA filed an application for provisional registration or provisional disposition against the Plaintiff on the instant land (Seoul Central District Court 2005 Momeneco) and the provisional disposition on the prohibition of disposal (Seoul Central District Court 2005 Momeneco), and filed a provisional disposition on September 16, 2005.

② AA rendered a judgment dismissing AA’s claim on April 20, 2006 on the ground that the foregoing provisional registration and principal registration based on the provisional registration were null and void, as the secured obligation of the above provisional registration was extinguished by repayment and deposit, and the principal registration based on the provisional registration was conducted without liquidation procedures. However, the above court asserted that the above provisional registration and principal registration were null and void, but the above court did not recognize that the principal registration in this case were in conformity with the

③ AA filed an appeal against the above judgment (Seoul High Court 2006Na○○○○○)

On July 25, 2007, the appellate court rendered a judgment ordering the cancellation of the above provisional registration and the principal registration on July 25, 2007, considering that the secured obligation of the above provisional registration was all extinguished due to repayment and deposit.

④ AA filed an appeal (Supreme Court Decision 2007Da 2007Da △△△△△△△△), and the court of final appeal rendered a judgment dismissing the lawsuit on December 13, 2007, on the ground that the said provisional registration and the principal registration were not the interest in the lawsuit of AA on the ground that the decision of permission for sale was finalized and the sale price was paid in full in the auction procedure to enforce the senior mortgage on the instant land during the course of the appellate trial.

(5) No provisional registration and principal registration on the registry for the land of this case shall be cancelled.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 3 evidence, Eul 3 evidence (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

1) Generally, a taxation disposition made on a person who does not have the factual basis of the legal relation, income, act, etc. which is subject to taxation is significant and apparent, but in a case where there are objective circumstances that could mislead him to believe that it is subject to taxation with respect to certain legal relations or factual relations which are not subject to taxation, if it is possible to accurately investigate the factual basis, it cannot be said that it would be apparent even if the defect is serious, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the illegal taxation disposition that misleads the fact of taxation is void automatically (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du7268, Sept. 4, 2002). In an administrative litigation seeking the invalidation of an administrative disposition, the Plaintiff is liable to assert and prove the grounds for such taxation disposition’s invalidity in the administrative litigation seeking the invalidity of such administrative disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du3460, May 13, 2010).

2) Whether provisional registration on the land of this case has become extinct

In light of the fact that the legal relationship was complicated to the extent that the judgment of the first instance court and the second instance court was different, that the defendant did not cancel the above provisional registration or the principal registration of the land at the time of the disposition of this case, and therefore, the defendant, who is the tax authority, appears to be able to clearly investigate the facts as to whether the land of this case is subject to taxation from the plaintiff to the non-party company, and therefore, the evidence alone submitted by the plaintiff is insufficient to view that there is a serious and apparent defect in the disposition of this case.

4. Conclusion

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