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

The reasoning for the court’s explanation on the instant case is as follows, and the reasoning for the judgment of the court of the first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment, except for dismissal or addition of some of the contents as follows. Thus, this is cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of

After the 8th decision of the first instance court, “if a transfer income tax cannot be imposed on the Plaintiff’s transfer margin despite the Plaintiff’s holding of the purchase price received as is, this would cause the seller to enjoy the transfer margin without taxation, which would seriously go against the tax justice and equity.”

○ Forms 2 through 15 of the judgment of the first instance court are as follows.

2. Parts used for repair (from 9th to 15th);

3) Determination on the third argument

A) First, we examine the allegation of illegality in the transfer timing.

(1) In calculating gains on transfer of assets, Article 98 of the Income Tax Act provides that the time of acquisition and time of transfer shall be the date of liquidation of the price of the relevant assets except in cases prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as where the date of liquidation is unclear. Article 162(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "cases prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as where the date of liquidation is unclear" under the former part of Article 98 of the same Act means the date of receipt of registration entered in the registry, registry, or list, if the transfer of ownership (including registration and a statement of change of name) is made before the price is settled.

According to the facts acknowledged as above and the above relevant laws and regulations, the Plaintiff, before settling the sales price in accordance with the special agreement of this case, completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 29, 2005, which was the date of the intermediate payment, and the date of the intermediate payment on December 29, 2005. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 18170, Dec. 30, 2005; Presidential Decree No. 18170, Dec. 29, 2005; Presidential Decree No. 18170, Dec. 30, 2005>

Article 162 (1) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act in the case of a three-party registered title trust as in the case of this case, the plaintiff asserts that the title trust agreement and registration based thereon are null and void, and in the case of null and void registration, the transfer time of each real estate in this case shall be deemed to be January 20, 2006, the date of payment settlement, not the date of receipt of the registration.

Applicant, I can find out the following circumstances according to the relevant laws and regulations as seen earlier.

① For the purpose of excluding taxpayers from taxable income and ensuring the fairness of taxation by uniformly grasping the acquisition and transfer time of assets that are various standards within the framework of the income tax law, and interpreting and applying the relevant provisions without inconsistency, each of the above provisions is a provision restricting the acquisition time and transfer time of assets for tax calculation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Du165, Jun. 22, 199; 2000Du6282, Apr. 12, 2002).

② Although each of the above provisions provides for the period of transfer of assets as above for the purpose of excluding taxpayers and uniformly identifying taxable income and ensuring the fairness of taxation, if the substance of the registration is followed and the actual timing of transfer of assets is determined depending on the effect of the registration, it is contrary to the purpose of legislation, and is also contrary to the principle of clarity in the principle of no taxation without law.

③ Article 88 of the former Income Tax Act provides that “transfer” means the actual transfer of an asset at a price due to sale, exchange, investment in kind to a corporation, etc., regardless of the registration or enrollment of the asset, and a contract of sale, exchange, investment in kind, etc., which is the cause of the transfer with compensation, does not require that the legal validity of the contract is valid (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Du23644, Jul. 21, 201). Since the transfer under the Income Tax Act is not identical to the concept under the private law, it cannot be deemed that it is a valid legal act or registration under the Civil Act. Thus, in determining the time of the transfer of asset, it is not necessarily required that

④ In a three-party title trust, a seller transfers real estate to a truster and completing the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of a trustee who is not a truster is to implement a sales contract. Therefore, registration directly related to the payment by a truster is the registration of transfer of ownership completed from the seller to the trustee. If the property has been transferred at a cost due to the completion of the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of Nonparty 3, the title trustee, the time of the transfer of the property

⑤ Furthermore, as seen earlier in the instant case, regardless of the effect of changing the real right to real estate, Nonparty 3, the title trustee, disposed of each of the instant real estate, thereby acquiring the ownership of the third party. Since the Plaintiff owns the price under the instant sales contract as it is, the legal act itself is null and void and thus, it does not appear to be compared on the same line as the transfer cannot be deemed null and void.

(v)the theory of smallity;

In full view of the above circumstances, since the time of transfer of assets for each real estate of this case is the time of receipt of the registration of transfer of ownership from the Plaintiff, the seller, to Nonparty 3, the title trustee, pursuant to Article 162(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, and the disposition of this case in this case is lawful. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the time of transfer of assets for each real estate of this case should be seen as January 20, 2006, the date of settlement of price is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges, public officials (Presiding Judge) will be appointed in the future;

1) Since the purport of the claim stated in the instant complaint does not include a taxable period, the Plaintiff arranged the purport of the claim as above in the trial. This constitutes correction of the purport of the claim in order to clarify the content of the disputed taxation disposition.