If the attribution of ownership is unclear, the employer is liable to pay comprehensive real estate holding tax.

Since it is reasonable to see that the Plaintiff was operating horse riding tickets on the first and second land as of the tax base date of property tax, and it constitutes a taxpayer of property tax on the first and second land pursuant to Article 183(3) of the former Local Tax Act, the disposition of each comprehensive real estate holding tax on such premise is legitimate.

Revocation such as the imposition of comprehensive real estate holding tax, etc. by the Seoul Administrative Court 2012Guhap3120

AA

The Director of the Pacific District Office

March 29, 2013

May 10, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On November 10, 201, the Defendant revoked each imposition of the comprehensive real estate tax for the Plaintiff in 2006, the comprehensive real estate tax for rural and rural development tax for the first time in 2006, the comprehensive real estate tax for the first time in 2007, and the comprehensive real estate tax for rural and rural development tax for the second time in 2008, the comprehensive real estate tax for the first time in 2008, and the comprehensive real estate tax for rural and rural development tax for the second time in 209.

1. Details of the disposition;

" 가. 1) BBB 명의로 소유권이전등기가 마쳐져 있던 분할 전 OO시 OO면 OO리 (이후 행정구역명칭변경으로 OO시 OO동으로 되었고， 이하 'OO동'이라 한다) 산 41-1 임야 153，248㎡(이하 '분할 전 토지'라 한다) 중 66115/153248 지분에 관하여 1997. 10. 9. 원고 명의로 1997. 9. 20. 증여를 원인으로 한 소유권이전등기(이하 '이 사건 소유권이전등기'라 한다)가 마쳐졌다.", "2) 이후 분할 전 토지는 OO동 산41-1 임야 87，133㎡， OO동 산41-3 임야 9，898㎡(이후 OO동 104-1 체육용지 9，898㎡로 등록전환되었고， 이하 '제1토지'라 한다)， OO동 산41-4 임야 56，217㎡1)(이하 '제2토지'라 한다)로 분할되었고， 1999. 8. 19. 제1토지에 관하여 원고 명의로 같은 날 공유물 분할을 원인으로 한 소유권이전등기가， 1999. 8. 31. 제2토지에 관하여 원고 명의로 1999. 8. 19. 공유물 분할을 원인으로 한 소유권이전등기가각 마쳐졌으며， OO동 산41-1 임야 87，133㎡ 중 66115/153248 지분(이하 '제3토지'라 한다)에 관하여는 여전히 원고가 소유자로 등기되어 있었다.", 나. 1) BBB이 2007. 8. 27. 원고를 상대로 제기한 서울동부지방법원 2003가합6901 호 「진정명의회복을 원인으로 한 소유권이전등기」 사건에서， 위 법원은 '원고가 1997. 3. 15. BBB으로부터 분할 전 토지 중 66115/153248 지분(다만， 분할 후의 제1， 2토지 부분을 특정하여 매수하는 것으로 하였다)을 매매대금 OOOO원에 매수하였는데， 당시 분할 전 토지가 구 토지이용관리법(2002. 2. 4. 법률 제6655호로 폐지되기 전의 것) 상의 규제지역 내의 토지로서 관할관청으로부터 토지거래허가를 받아야 했으나， BBB과 원고는 이를 잠탈하기 위하여 1997. 10. 9. 위 지분에 관하여 원고 명의로 1997. 9. 20. 증여를 원인으로 한 이 사건 소유권이전등기를 마쳤다. 결국 원고가 토지거래허가를 받지 아니하고 이를 잠탈하기 위하여 증여를 원인으로 소유권이전등기를 하기로 한 때부터 위 매매계약은 확정적으로 무효로 되고， 이에 터잡은 이 사건 소유권이전등기 역시 원인이 없게 되어 무효라고 보아야 하므로， 이 사건 소유권이전등기에 따라 마쳐진 제1， 2， 3토지에 관한 원고 명의의 각 소유권이전등기도 무효라고 할 것이다'라고 판단하여 2007. 7. 5. '원고는 BBB에게 제1， 2， 3토지에 관하여 진정명의회복을 원인으로 한 소유권이전등기절차를 이행하라'라는 판결을 선고하였다.

2) In the instant case, Seoul High Court Decision 2007Na79383, the appellate court claimed that BB sold 6115/153248 shares of the land before subdivision to the Plaintiff, as the judgment at the first instance court, and that BB sold 6115/15/153248 shares of the land before subdivision to the Plaintiff, and that, in accordance with the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name (hereinafter “Real Estate Real Name Act”), the title trust agreement and the ownership transfer registration in the name of the Plaintiff based thereon were invalid and invalid, and that the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff under the name of 30 was also invalidated and invalid, and that BB concluded a title trust agreement with the Plaintiff on July 8, 2009 to construct a sports center or a golf course on the land before subdivision and dismissed the Plaintiff’s ownership transfer registration under the name of 15/165 of the former Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name (hereinafter “Real Estate Real Name Act”).

3) On April 12, 2010, with respect to the land 1, 2, and 3, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on December 15, 2009 under the name of BB on April 12, 2010.

C. 1) In 2006 through 2009, the Defendant considered the first and second land for which the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the Plaintiff’s name as of the assessment basis date of the comprehensive real estate holding tax for the year 2009 as the subject of the comprehensive real estate holding tax for the Plaintiff, and subsequently issued the Seoul High Court’s decision that “each transfer registration of ownership in the Plaintiff’s name with respect to the first and second land shall be null and void by the Real Estate Real Name Act” in the case No. 2007Na79383, the Defendant corrected that the first and second land shall not be subject to the comprehensive real estate holding tax for the Plaintiff on December 23, 2009 by deeming that the first and second land are not subject to the comprehensive real estate holding tax for the Plaintiff.

2) On April 12, 2010, the Defendant issued a notice of each of the instant dispositions to the Plaintiff on November 10, 201, on the following grounds: “Until the ownership transfer registration has been completed in the name of BB, the Plaintiff shall be subject to property tax as the actual user of the first and second land,” and “the land shall be subject to property tax as the subject of comprehensive real estate tax against the Plaintiff: (a) on November 10, 2006, the Plaintiff shall be deemed as the subject of comprehensive real estate tax against the Plaintiff; and (b) on November 10, 2006, the OOOOO and special rural development tax; (c) the OOOOO and special rural development tax for the year 207, the OOOOOO and special rural development tax for the year 2008, the OOOOO and special rural development tax for the year 209.

D. The Plaintiff appealed and filed a request with the Tax Tribunal on February 10, 2012, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s request on June 14, 2012.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), and Eul evidence 1 to 8, and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Article 12(1) of the Gross Real Estate Tax Act provides that a person who satisfies certain requirements among those liable to pay property tax on land shall be the person liable to pay comprehensive real estate holding tax on land, and that person who does not fall under the person liable to pay property tax on land shall not be the person liable to pay comprehensive real estate holding tax on land. However, as the case where BB filed against the Plaintiff for the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff as of the tax base date of each of the dispositions of this case, it is found that the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff as of the first and second land was null and void, and as the result, the registration of ownership transfer for the first and second land was finalized as BB on April 12, 2010, and the registration of ownership transfer for the first and second land was completed under the name of BB on April 12, 2010. Therefore, the person liable to pay property tax on the first and second land is the person liable to pay property tax, and thus, each of the dispositions of this case is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Article 12(1) of the Gross Real Estate Tax Act provides that a person who is liable to pay the comprehensive real estate holding tax on land as of the tax base date (the tax base date of property tax, June 1 each year) stipulates that the aggregate amount of the publicly notified prices of the land subject to taxation exceeds a certain amount, and Article 183(1) of the former Local Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 1021, Mar. 31, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that a person who actually owns property as of the tax base date shall be liable to pay the property tax, and Article 12(3) of the same Act provides that the person who actually owns property as of the property tax base date is liable to pay the property tax if it is unclear

2) As seen earlier, the first instance court (Seoul East Eastern District Court 2003Gahap6901) held that "the plaintiff purchased 6615/153248 shares (the first and the second part of the land after the division) of the land before the division from BB on March 15, 1997, and "the plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of donation in order to escape this without the land transaction permission." However, the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2007Na79383) concluded a partnership agreement with the plaintiff to build sports centers or sports facilities on the land before the division before the division, including horse riding and golf courses, and that the partnership constitutes property tax for 201 to 206, since it is not clear that the plaintiff actually belonged to the plaintiff, and that the partnership constitutes property tax for 209 to 206.

However, comprehensively taking account of the evidence No. 3 and evidence No. 9, the plaintiff and BB decided to operate a business with the entire arguments, and the plaintiff and BB decided to build sports centers or sports facilities, including riding courses, on the land owned by BB, and the development costs were appropriated for the purchase price of forest land owned by BB, and the plaintiff decided to contribute to the plaintiff's efforts and part of development costs, and the plaintiff was not able to contribute to the plaintiff's development costs. ② The plaintiff was issued by BB on March 14, 1997 with a written consent for land use to construct riding courses on the 9,898 square meters (one land after division) of the land before division from 1997, and submitted an application for the above 20-year land use plan to 197, and the plaintiff was not liable to pay property tax on the 20-year land under the premise that the plaintiff was liable to pay property tax on the 20-year land, and the plaintiff was not liable to pay property tax on the 30-year or 297.7.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.