It is insufficient to recognize that trust was made in the name of ownership, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and the taxation disposition is legitimate.

It is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff entrusted ownership in the name of the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and even if the cost of construction works, etc. was spent, it is difficult to deem that the instant land was only one parcel out of the lots partitioned from forest land, the conversion acquisition value calculated by the Defendant and construction cost exceeding the difference between the acquisition value and the acquisition value calculated by the Defendant, and that the taxation disposition is legitimate

2014Gudan3133 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

OO

O Head of tax office

November 27, 2015

January 15, 2016

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 39,122,130 for the Plaintiff on January 2, 2013 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 4, 2006, the Plaintiff acquired KRW 240,000,00 from the KimA and BBCC clans (hereinafter referred to as KimA, etc.), and transferred KRW 540,000,000 to the United StatesA on September 5, 201, the Plaintiff acquired KRW 928,00 square meters in OO-O-O forest land (hereinafter referred to as the “instant land”).

B. On November 30, 201, the Plaintiff filed a return on capital gains tax with the Defendant on November 30, 201, asserting that the Plaintiff had performed civil construction works equivalent to KRW 335,00,000 after acquiring the instant land, and filed a return on capital gains tax by deducting the same from the capital expenditure, as zero won.

C. As a result of the on-site investigation, the Defendant deemed that it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff had engaged in capital expenses the same as that claimed by the Plaintiff, and accordingly, denied the acquisition value from necessary expenses, while calculating the acquisition value at KRW 370,285,000, the converted acquisition value, and issued the instant disposition to rectify and notify the Plaintiff of the transfer income tax of KRW 39,122,130 (including additional taxes) accrued in January 2, 2013.

D. The Plaintiff filed a tax appeal on August 16, 2013, but was dismissed on April 29, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff is the representative director of AAAA Construction (hereinafter “AAA Construction”), who is not the Plaintiff, and the AAA Construction is to purchase the 7,736 square meters of the 7,06 square meters of the 7,000 square meters of the 7,736 square meters of the 7,000 square meters of the 7,00 square meters of the 7,000 square meters of the 7,000 square meters of the 7,00 square meters of the 7,000 square meters before the division from KimA, etc. on November 24, 2004, and to develop the forest as at the time of the transaction permission area and the area exceeds 1,00 square meters of the above company’s ownership, and completed

On the other hand, among the land divided to obtain a loan because the above company was in bad credit position at the time, the AAA Construction was entrusted only to the plaintiff with the ownership, and its registration was transferred to the plaintiff from the KimA to the plaintiff.

Therefore, even though the title truster is AAA Construction, the disposition of this case imposing capital gains tax on the plaintiff who is merely the title trustee is unlawful.

2) Even if the Plaintiff is deemed to have reverted to the Plaintiff on April 18, 2006, the instant disposition that was not included in the necessary expenses was unlawful even though the Plaintiff, as a contracting party to the Housing Site Development Project under the Housing Site Development Project in the AA Construction on April 18, 2006, performed construction work equivalent to KRW 335,00,000, such as complex construction work, access road construction work, access bridge construction, and reinforced earth retaining wall construction work on the instant land, and paid a considerable amount of the said construction cost as capital.

B. Determination

1) Whether title trust is held

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of evidence Nos. 3, 4, 5-1, 1, 2, 6, 7, and 2-1, 2, 2, 6, 7, and 2-1, the Plaintiff or the above company purchased the above 7 forest land and sold it to the purchaser as a housing site, and the co-ownership share was transferred to several buyers from KimA, etc. The above forest land was divided into 22 lots, including the land in this case and transferred each ownership. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff can be recognized to have received the registration of ownership transfer from KimA, etc. on the land in this case among the partitioned land, on the other hand, while the statement of evidence Nos. 7, 8, 9, and 11 is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff or AAAA Construction developed and sold the forest in this case as the housing site, and there is no other evidence to support otherwise.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

2) Whether necessary expenses are deducted

It is difficult to believe that evidence No. 12 was prepared between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s representative director as it was, and thus, it is insufficient to find that each of the images No. 13-1, 2, and 3 of evidence No. 13-1, 200,000 won was included in the instant land, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Rather, according to the purport of the evidence No. 5-1, 2, 6, and 7 of evidence No. 5-1, 6, and all oral arguments, even if the cost of construction of complex construction, access road construction, access bridge construction, and steel retaining wall construction as alleged by the Plaintiff was spent as a housing site, it is difficult to conclude that there was no evidence to support that there was no difference between the acquisition value calculated by the Defendant and the acquisition value of the instant land more than 370,285,000,000 won and the acquisition value of the instant land more than 240,000 won.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.