Even if the disposition of imposition after authorization was granted for the rehabilitation plan, it cannot be said that the defect is evident since the tax authority could not report rehabilitation claims through the Plaintiff’s title trust.

Since the fact of title trust was revealed as a result of an on-site investigation on the actual owner’s relationship, even if the disposition of tax imposition was taken after authorization was granted for the rehabilitation plan, it cannot be said that

Article 94 of the Income Tax Act: Scope of Transfer Income

2015Gudan3367 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax, etc.

IsaA

BB Head of tax office et al.

April 1, 2016

May 13, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

As to the Plaintiff, Defendant BB director of the tax office confirms that the imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 105,348,093 (including additional tax), capital gains tax of KRW 27,520,675 (including additional tax) for the year 2009, and the imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 27,520,675 (including additional tax) for the year 2012 by Defendant BB on February 3, 2014 and the imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 10,61,220 for the local income tax of KRW 2,786,930 for the year 209 by Defendant BB on February 3, 2014 is null and void.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 15, 2006, 2006, with respect to 42 forest land of 49,488 square meters in Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do D-dong

On May 14, 2007, the above forest was divided into 42,477 square meters of forest and 42-1 forest and 7,041 square meters of forest and 42-1 forest and f,041 square meters of forest and 42-1 forest and f,041 square meters of forest and 42-1 land of the above 42-1 land was expropriated in FFF Corporation on April 7, 2009, and the above 42 land of Busan 42 was sold at 971,00,000 won at auction on September 19, 2012.

B. The head of the FF Tax Office imposed capital gains tax for the year 2009 and the capital gains tax for the year 2012 on the maximum E, as the maximum E, the registered titleholder of the said land (hereinafter referred to as “second parcel of land”) did not report capital gains tax on the said transfer, and the head of the FF Tax Office filed a claim for the review of legality before taxation by asserting that the most E is a title trustee. As a result of the on-site investigation on the actual owner of the said parcel of land between September 23, 2013 and October 31, 2013, the Plaintiff, Kim GG, and Kang H made a title trust to the said largest E, as the actual owner of the said parcel of land.

C. Accordingly, on February 3, 2014, the head of the Defendant BB Tax Office imposed capital gains tax of KRW 105,348,093 (including additional tax) on each of the instant land 1/3 shares in the Plaintiff in 2009, and capital gains tax of KRW 27,520,675 (including additional tax) for the year 2012. Accordingly, on February 3, 2014, the head of the Defendant BBCC imposed capital gains tax of KRW 10,661,220, and capital gains tax of KRW 2,786,930 for the local income tax of KRW 10,78,930 for the Plaintiff in the instant case.

D. Meanwhile, on December 26, 2012, the Plaintiff was subject to the Seoul Central District Court’s decision to commence individual rehabilitation procedures by 2012 OOO, and was decided to authorize the individual rehabilitation plan on August 26, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 2, Evidence No. 2, Eul-B and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Before the Defendants decided to authorize the above individual rehabilitation plan, the instant taxation claim is a reorganization claim.

Since a tax claim cannot be exercised any further due to the extinguishment of the taxation right pursuant to Article 251 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Bankruptcy Act"), the pertinent disposition is unlawful after the lapse of the taxation right, and its defect is significant and apparent and thus is null and void.

B. Determination

According to Article 251 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act, except for the rights recognized under the rehabilitation plan or this Act, when it is decided to authorize the rehabilitation plan, the debtor is exempted from liability for all rehabilitation claims and rehabilitation security rights, and all of the rights held by shareholders and equity right holders and the debtor's property are extinguished. Tax imposition disposition is a tax administrative act that generates specific taxation claims involving the right to self-performance, such as the disposition on default, by setting specific tax amount with respect to the taxation claims abstractly established. Thus, even if the taxation claim is abstract before the commencement of the individual rehabilitation procedure, if the rehabilitation plan is decided without reporting specific taxation claims as rehabilitation claims, the tax authority cannot further exercise the right to impose taxes pursuant to Article 251 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da4383, Sept. 6, 2007). Thus, it cannot be readily concluded that the Defendants’ real title trust relation with each of the instant land owner was on the ground that the instant tax claim was on the spot inspection conducted by the Plaintiff, the rehabilitation claim of this case.

3. Conclusion

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