Where a debtor who has received the documents required for transfer registration due to the extinction of the security right has transferred his/her ownership in the name of a third party, a disposition imposing transfer income tax is appropriate.

If a plaintiff who received a registration of transfer of ownership on real estate for the purpose of securing a claim has been fully repaid the principal and interest of his/her obligation and delivered documents necessary for the registration of transfer of ownership to the debtor, and the debtor has made a registration of transfer of ownership directly to a third party without following the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership in his/her own future by using the above documents, etc., the plaintiff only returned the ownership, and it does not transfer the transfer income tax and defense detailed and disposition against the plaintiff on the premise that

Article 23 (1) of the Income Tax Act

Kim Yoon-sung

Head of Western Tax Office

The imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 1,700,904 against the plaintiff as of October 16, 1981 and of KRW 170,080,080 against the defendant as of October 16, 198 shall be revoked respectively.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

The facts that the Defendant imposed capital gains tax on the Plaintiff as of October 16, 1981 and the said defense tax on the Plaintiff are without dispute between the parties concerned, and as of June 3, 1981, the transfer income tax and the said tax were imposed on the Plaintiff. In full view of the entire purport of the pleadings in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, and 3 (Tax Data Transfer Income Tax), the real estate recorded in the separate sheet (hereinafter: the real estate in this case was originally owned by Non-Party Park Jong-young) on the register as of August 30, 1979, the ownership transfer registration was made before the Plaintiff on June 3, 1980, and the ownership transfer registration was made on the same date on the same date as that of Non-Party Jeon-tae, 3, 1980, the Defendant considered that the Plaintiff transferred the real estate in this case to the above non-party on June 3, 1980, and did not impose capital gains tax on the Plaintiff 1 and 361,4.06.

The plaintiff's legal representative argues that the defendant imposed capital gains tax on June 3, 1980 and the same defense tax on the plaintiff although he did not transfer the real estate to the nearest person. Thus, the plaintiff's legal representative alleged that the defendant was erroneous in the imposition of capital gains tax as above. Thus, the plaintiff's legal representative did not dispute the establishment of the above Gap's 1, 2 (No. 1, and 500,000 interest rate for the above real estate to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's legal representative did not receive the above provisional registration from the plaintiff on March 23, 1973 to the above provisional registration of this case for the purpose of the above provisional registration of this case by 50,000,000 interest rate for the above real estate borrowed from the plaintiff and the above provisional registration of this case to the plaintiff on June 1, 196, the plaintiff's legal representative did not receive the above provisional registration of this case for the purpose of the above provisional registration of this case by 20,000,00 won for the above provisional registration of this case's loan No.

However, as the Dong did not repay the above debt until June 22, 1979, on August 30, 1979, the plaintiff completed the principal registration on the basis of the above provisional registration on the real estate for the purpose of security in accordance with the contents of the above complaint telephone, before the plaintiff (after that, the above house was continuously occupied and used) on August 15, 1980 when he demanded the Dong to repay the above debt (after that, on May 15, 1980, he may borrow a larger amount of money from the provisional registration on the real estate of this case, which was proposed by the Dong on June 22, 1979, and if so, he issued the documents necessary therefor to the Dong to pay the above debt to the plaintiff with the borrowed money, he made a provisional registration on the real estate of this case and made a loan of KRW 13,000,000 from the non-party, and repaid all the principal and interest of the plaintiff to the above plaintiff on June 3, 1963.

Therefore, since the purpose of the security on the real estate of this case is extinguished by this, the plaintiff's name is no longer needed to hold the registration of transfer of ownership under the plaintiff's name, the plaintiff delivered documents, etc. necessary for the registration of transfer of ownership on the real estate of this case to the same Park Park Jong-chul ( June 3, 1980) and the same person did not complete the registration of transfer of ownership on his own in his own name through the above documents, etc., and there is no reason to prove otherwise.

According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff lent the money to the above Park Jong-chul with the real estate as security, and received the above money, and returned the ownership of the real estate of this case to the Dong. On June 3, 1980, the plaintiff did not transfer it to the non-party Cho Jong-sung and the same nearest person.

Thus, the defendant's above transfer income tax and the defendant's defense tax (this defense tax becomes 170,090 won according to the annexed tax invoice even though it becomes 170,090 won according to the annexed tax invoice) on the premise that the plaintiff's transfer of the real estate in this case and the transfer margin, are illegal, and the defendant imposed a tax amount of KRW 170,080 as stated in the annexed tax invoice. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking its cancellation is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Yoon Sang-ho (Presiding Judge)