양도소득세부과처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows: (a) the dismissal or addition of part of the judgment of the court of first instance as referred to in paragraph (2); and (b) the addition of the judgment of the plaintiff’s new or new argument to the court of first instance as referred to in paragraph (3) is the same as the entry of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance; and (c) thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act
(hereinafter the meaning of the language used in this context is the same as that of the judgment of the first instance court) that is closed or added on February 2, 200, and the part 5, which is the second part, is "Cheong Forest Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Cheong Forest Development")" as "Cheong Forest Development (hereinafter referred to as "Cheong Forest Development")."
After "F" in the second and sixth conduct, "(hereinafter referred to as "the purchaser of this case")" shall be added to "B" (hereinafter referred to as "Cheong forest development and E and F).
Part 2 of the 18th sentence " January 3, 2015" shall be changed to " January 13, 2015".
The 3rd parallel 7 to 15th parallel are as follows.
“1) Since the instant land actually acquired from the Plaintiff and transferred it to the instant buyer, the instant disposition premised on the Plaintiff’s direct transfer of the instant land to the instant buyer is contrary to the substance over form principle.
Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes states the principle of substantial taxation as follows, and Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes must impose income tax on a person who actually acquired income if there is only the nominal ownership of income and there is another person who actually acquired income. The fact that the ownership of income is only the nominal ownership of income and there is a person who actually acquired income, bears the burden of proving that there is another person who actually acquired income (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da1448, Dec. 11, 1984).