It is difficult to recognize that the title of the instant land was entrusted, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

In full view of the records of the relevant case, it cannot be recognized that the title trust was obtained since the ownership of the land in this case was reverted to the Plaintiff before the transfer.

Article 88 (Definition of Transfer)

2015Gudan8555 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing Capital Gains Tax

AA

BB Director of the Tax Office

August 21, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

On July 2, 2014, the Defendant revoked the imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 25,081,740 on the Plaintiff in 2009.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 10, 207, the Plaintiff: (a) transferred the instant land to a third party on July 7, 2009, after having completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of sale on December 7, 2007 with respect to the share of 18.92/812 square meters out of 147-12 square meters in OO-Myeon 147-12, 147-14, 950 square meters in the same Ri, and 147-16, 812 square meters in the same Ri (hereinafter referred to as “the instant land”); and (b) after having completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of sale on December 7, 2007, the Plaintiff did not report and pay the transfer income tax.

B. On July 2, 2014, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff acquired KRW 19,872,00 on the real estate registry and transferred KRW 61,00,000 on the successful bid price, and determined and notified the Plaintiff’s transfer income tax of KRW 25,081,740 (including additional tax) for the year 2009.

C. Accordingly, the Defendant filed a request for review on September 1, 2014, but was dismissed on March 16, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 5, 8 through 12, Eul 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff obtained title trust fromCC with respect to the instant land, the instant capital gains tax should be imposed onCC, the actual owner.

B. Determination

Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "if the ownership of income, profit, property, act or transaction subject to taxation is nominal, and there is a separate person to whom such income actually belongs, the person to whom such income actually belongs shall be liable for tax payment and the tax law shall apply." Thus, the fact that the ownership of income is merely nominal and there is a separate person to whom such income actually accrues (see Supreme Court Decision 84Nu505, Dec. 11, 1984).

Then, it is difficult to acknowledge that the Plaintiff was entrusted with the title of the instant land by means of the evidence No. 5-2 and No. 6. Rather, according to the statement No. 5-2 and No. 6, where the sales procedure of the instant land, etc. against the Plaintiff is not completed until June 21, 2008 from the purchase price claim claim 209da5900* Where the sale procedure of the instant land, etc. against the Plaintiff is not completed by June 21, 2008, the Plaintiff agreed that the Plaintiff’s ownership of the instant land, etc. transferred from theCC belongs to the Plaintiff ultimately, and the Plaintiff’s claim againstCC is deemed to have been fully repaid. The Plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed due to the failure to complete the sale procedure of the instant land, etc. by June 21, 2008, and all of the appeals ofCC became final and conclusive. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the ownership of the instant land was reverted to the Plaintiff prior to its transfer is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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