Changwon District Court 2008Guhap844 ( October 01, 2009)

Examination Transfer 2007-0178 ( December 28, 2007)

Whether a title trust is made where there is only one person, and the transfer registration of ownership is jointly acquired.

In the case of a joint acquisition of real estate and transfer registration, it constitutes a title trust, which is traded in violation of the Real Estate Real Name Act, and it is necessary to calculate gains on transfer based on the actual transaction price.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are incidental to the plaintiffs.

Purport of claim and appeal

The decision of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of 112,97,870 won, resident tax of 11,299,780 won, resident tax of 11,29,780 won, and income tax of 55,594,760 won, resident tax of 5,559,470 won, and the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of 58,848,660 won, resident tax of 5,884,860 won, and 860 won shall be revoked by the director of the court of first instance on July 2, 2007.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court's explanation is as follows: "No. 7 No. 7 of the first instance court's decision" is "No. 17, 2005"; "No. 9-2 and No. 3 of the second instance court's decision" is "No. 5 of the first instance court's decision"; "No. 5 of the second instance court's decision" is "No. 5 of the first instance court's decision"; "No. 5 of the second instance court's decision" is "No. 5 of the first instance court's decision"; "No. 5 of the first instance court's decision" is added to "No. 7 of the first instance court's decision"; and the second sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be

2. Additional judgment;

A. The plaintiff Jeonga and Lee c's assertion

Since the above plaintiffs received a loan of KRW 500 million from e branch of Gyeongnam-gu Agricultural Cooperative of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City at the time of acquiring the real estate of this case due to the shortage of funds and disbursed KRW 74,621,703 as interest thereon, the above interest expenses are deemed as necessary expenses to be deducted from capital gains, but each disposition of this case is unlawful.

B. Determination

Article 97 (1) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7837 of Dec. 31, 2005) only lists necessary expenses to be deducted from the transfer value in calculating gains on transfer of a resident, such as acquisition value (subparagraph 1), capital expenses, etc. as prescribed by the Presidential Decree (subparagraph 2), transfer expenses, etc. as prescribed by the Presidential Decree (subparagraph 4). Article 163 (2) and (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act and Article 79 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Enforcement Decree of the Act specifically stipulate necessary expenses. However, Article 163 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act and Article 79 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act specifically stipulate that interest expenses on the acquiring level of

Therefore, the above plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed in its entirety due to the lack of reason. However, the judgment of the court of first instance is just in its conclusion, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed in its entirety due to the lack of reason. It is so decided as per Disposition.