Seoul High Court-2014-Nu-4310 ( October 27, 2015), Seoul High Court-201

Cho High Court Decision 2012Du2249 ( October 23, 2013)

(In case there is a separate real beneficiary of capital gains, unlike the name of ownership, the nominal owner may not be a taxpayer of capital gains tax.

(1) In light of the substance over form principle, it is difficult to regard a seller under the second sales contract as the subject of actual attribution of transfer income under the substance over form principle as the subject of actual attribution of transfer income, in view of the fact that a seller under the second sales contract had no particular involvement in the process of performing the second sales contract after expressing his intention to cancel the first sales contract.

Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Scope of Transfer Income under Article 94 of Income Tax Act

2015Du38412 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

Yellow AA

Head of Seocho Tax Office

Seoul High Court 2014Nu43310 (No. 27, 2015)

June 11, 2015

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

All of the records of this case and the judgment of the court below and the grounds of appeal were examined, but it is clear that the assertion on the grounds of appeal by the appellant constitutes Article 4 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure for Appeal and therefore, the appeal is dismissed under Article 5 of the above Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by