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

Cheong-gu Office

The imposition of OOO(including additional tax) on the Plaintiff on March 2, 2011 by the Defendant shall be revoked.

A. On February 15, 2007, JeongB acquired 16-58, 16-94m2 from among the 16th floor buildings of reinforced concrete structure slab 16th floor (hereinafter “instant building”) in the auction procedure, and transferred the instant building to Ansan on May 3, 2007 after acquiring 1048m2 (hereinafter “OB”) from OB to OB. If OB transferred the instant building to OB at the competent tax office, YB filed a report on the calculation of capital gains tax.

B. On March 2, 2011, the Defendant calculated the Plaintiff’s share in the acquisition and transfer value as follows, on the ground that the Plaintiff and YangD acquired the instant building by lending the name of EB, and that it transferred it to AnOB, and imposed an OO (including additional tax) on the Plaintiff on March 2, 201 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

Acquisition value (cost)

Transfer Value (won)

OOO

OOO

YangD Shares

OOO

OOO

Consolidateds

OOO

OOO

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff is merely a creditor of DoD, and both the ownership of the instant building and the sales rights of Dogna, as seen below, were exercised by Dogna. Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of this case based on the premise that the Plaintiff and Dogna acquired the instant building in the name of DogB was unlawful.

○ The Plaintiff did not bear all the cost of purchasing the instant building. The two Does borrowed OOOO from GaE to use it as a bid bond, and both Does paid the remainder of the bid price with the amount borrowed from OOO and the FF bank.

○ The Plaintiff was not involved in the bath business of the instant building. GGtech Co., Ltd. is only the name of the Plaintiff, and actually exercised all rights as the representative.

Of three parcels of land, such as OOO-dong 137-3, and factory buildings on its ground, which are owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “HH factory shares”), one-half percent (1/2) of each Plaintiff’s possession of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “HH factory shares”), is also o-D, and the Plaintiff is merely a surety. A loan certificate of February 13, 2007 (No. 7 certificates, No. 2006, Mar. 31, 2006; No. 10045, Feb. 14, 2007; hereinafter “O-O-O-the borrower, and YangD”) is written voluntarily by PB by PB to sell the Plaintiff’s seal.

2) The defendant's assertion

The Plaintiff, rather than a simple creditor of the two D, acquired the instant building under the name of EB as an investor, and transferred it to the Plaintiff. As such, the Plaintiff was exempt from the debt OO for the existing ACC due to the transfer cost, it is the substantial acquisitor of the transfer proceeds.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

In full view of the respective descriptions of Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, 6, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, and Eul evidence 1 through 9 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the whole purport of the arguments in witness Kim II, the following facts may be recognized. Any witness testimony contrary thereto is not believed, and any witness testimony is insufficient to reverse the above fact-finding solely on the basis of each of the statements of evidence as set forth in Gap evidence 4, 5, 7 through 11, 14, 15, 16, 20 through 24.

1) Since around 2004, Dodd was leased the instant building and operated bathing rooms under the trade name of JJJJ. Around 2005, the Plaintiff lent the above bathing room operating funds to Dodddddd's above bathing operation, and completed the registration of the business of the above bath in the name of GGtech Co., Ltd. with the representative director.

2) On March 31, 2006, the Plaintiff and Yang DoD borrowed OOE from AnnCC. At the time, the Plaintiff established the right to collateral security against the maximum amount of POOE’s shares in HH factory owned by the Plaintiff as a mortgagee for the purpose of securing the above loan obligation.

3) On the other hand, on August 10, 2005, voluntary auction of the instant building was commenced, and on December 12, 2006, HoBB, a public bath employee, was awarded a successful bid on December 12, 2006, and on February 15, 2007, an OOOE was fully paid. Of the successful bid price, the Plaintiff and YangD were paid with loans borrowed from AnCC on February 14, 2007.

4) The Plaintiff and YangD borrowed money from AnCC from March 31, 2006 to February 14, 2007, including OOOOO members under the above paragraph (2) and OOO members under the above paragraph (3). The Plaintiff and YangD created a collateral security right of maximum debt amount of OOO members with respect to the instant building acquired under the name of ACC on February 15, 2007 for the answer to the above loan obligation.

5) Meanwhile, on April 3, 2007, ACC proposed that, upon transferring the instant building to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff would have repaid the entire credit held by the Plaintiff and YangD, and that, on the same day, the Plaintiff would also cancel the right to collateral security established in the HH Si factory shares, the Plaintiff, who owns the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff accepted the proposal on the same day, and accordingly, completed the registration of transfer under the name of ACC on the instant building, which was registered under the name of AB on May 3, 2007.

6) However, in order for ACC to not cancel the right to collateral security on its factory shares, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against ACC to cancel the said right to collateral security (Seoul High Court Decision 2008Na59720, Jan. 29, 2009) and won the lawsuit (Seoul High Court Decision 2008Na59720, Sept. 29, 2009). The judgment became final and conclusive and conclusive on September 29, 2009, the right to collateral security in the name of ACC, which was established for AH factory shares, was cancelled on April 3, 2007.

7) Accordingly, the Defendant: (a) acquired the instant building jointly by the Plaintiff and YangD under the name of AB; (b) deemed that the Plaintiff was exempted from the existing debt OOOO members while transferring it to ACC; (c) recognized the Plaintiff’s share in the transfer value, namely, the transfer value, and the amount of the exempted debt as the Plaintiff’s owner of the foregoing HH Si factory shares; and (d) recognized the Plaintiff as an OO member, which is the secured debt of the right to collateral security that was cancelled.

D. Determination

1) If a title truster transfers real estate to a third party and income from such transfer was attributed to a title truster, if the title truster is subject to a title truster, under the principle of substantial taxation under Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the taxpayer of the relevant capital gains tax is the title truster who is the subject of the transfer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu6387, Oct. 10, 197

2) In full view of the following indirect circumstances, the Plaintiff and YangD agreed to transfer the ownership of the instant building in return for the acquisition of the instant building by lending the name of MaB, and the exemption of the existing obligation between the Ansan and the Plaintiff, and the fact that the building was executed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the lawsuit is sufficiently recognized.

○ The Plaintiff received the transfer of the OOO members from the OO members, which borrowed the HO-si factory shares as collateral, to the Plaintiff’s passbook. As to this, the Plaintiff asserted that it was actually used by YangD, but did not present objective evidence, such as financial data.

On April 3, 2007, the judgment of the court of first instance related to ○○ related civil procedure asserted that “Defendant ACC agreed to exempt the Plaintiff from all of the obligations of the Plaintiff and YangD in lieu of the purchase price of the instant building, and to rescind the right to collateral security regarding each of the instant factories.”

○ The Plaintiff did not file a criminal complaint, asserting that the loan certificate, etc. in the name of the Plaintiff was forged by Sung KK, and that it is expected to file a criminal complaint.

○ The Plaintiff was simply a simple creditor of the two D and lent the name of the representative director of GGtech corporation to secure the claim. However, the reason is not easily accepted.

○ In this case, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that, “The Plaintiff: (a) between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff who is in the same creditor status on April 3, 2007; (b) the Plaintiff renounced the means to recover the claim through the instant friendship; (c) collected the claim from the land in the Suwon's Suwon's original business site; and (d) AnalCC promised to terminate the real mortgage (H Si factory shares) in the Plaintiff's LL-dong Real Estate (H Si factory shares) instead of recovering the claim in a manner that would bring about the Plaintiff's ownership and business rights to the instant friendship as agreed upon with the Yangdo and the already agreed upon; (d) the Plaintiff transferred a kind of shares in the instant friendship to AnalCC, and (e) agreed to exempt the Plaintiff from the obligation to guarantee the Plaintiff's shares in the HH factory at the time of Hsi.

3) Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition imposing capital gains tax on the Plaintiff based on such fact-finding is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Ultimately, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.