양도소득세 등 부과처분 취소 청구의 소
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal or addition of the following contents among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance. Therefore, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420
Part 2, "Cinam" in Part 17 shall be changed to "Saek".
Part 8, Nos. 6 and 7 are as follows: "The plaintiff D, who is the deceased's child, was directly involved in the revocation of provisional attachment, and thereby the plaintiff D could have known the fact that the real owner of the real estate of this case was the deceased F."
Part 9 "No reason exists" in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be added to the following:
“(A) Even if the instant case is a contractual title trust as alleged by the Plaintiffs, J is deemed to have known the fact of such title trust, and the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the deceased K is deemed null and void). In other words, considering the Supreme Court en banc Decision 2014Do6992 Decided May 19, 2016, which abolished the theory of relative attribution in the title trust, the Plaintiffs asserted that the instant disposition of transfer income tax was unlawful. In the event that the instant real estate was transferred to a third party and the income accrued from such transfer was reverted to the title truster, the relevant taxpayer of transfer income tax under the principle of substantial taxation stipulated in Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes is not the title truster who is the subject of the transfer and the title trustee who is the subject of the transfer (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 96Nu6387, Oct. 10, 197; Supreme Court Decision 2014Do6929, May 19, 2016).
2. Conclusion, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed in entirety as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed.