Seoul Administrative Court 2012Guhap16268 ( November 16, 2012)

Since the defect can not be deemed to be obvious in appearance, it does not constitute an invalidation.

Since the real estate was transferred under the name of the plaintiff for more than two years and the report of capital gains tax was received under the name of the plaintiff, the objective and external facts were found to exist, and even if there is a separate taxpayer, the defect cannot be deemed to be apparent in appearance, so it cannot be deemed to be null and void.

2012Nu38901 Invalidity of a disposition of capital gains tax collection, etc.

LAAA

2 others than the Head of Central Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Guhap16268 decided November 16, 2012

May 15, 2013

May 29, 2013

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

The judgment of the first instance court shall be revoked. The plaintiff's notification (00 won of capital gains tax) issued by the director of the Jung-gu Tax Office on November 10, 201 by the plaintiff due to the plaintiff's notification of capital gains tax as of November 10, 201, and notification issued by the director of the first instance court (00 won of capital gains tax), and notification made on December 12, 201 (00 won of capital gains tax) and around March 18, 2012 (00 won of capital gains tax), and notification made by the director of the first instance court on January 18, 201 by the head of the Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Office (0 won of capital gains tax as of January 24, 201) and notification made by the director of the second instance tax office on April 24, 201, and notification made by the director of the second instance tax office on each of the real estate listed in attached Tables 1 through 31.21 through 24.25

The reasons for the judgment of the first instance are reasonable, and they refer to the main arguments and judgments that the plaintiff emphasizes again in the appellate court pursuant to Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. The plaintiff, although the taxpayer of the transfer income tax of this case was a title truster, the title truster, PP, etc., the disposition of this case taken by the plaintiff against the plaintiff is invalid because it violates the substance over form principle. Even if the transfer income tax was imposed on the plaintiff due to the mistake that the transfer registration was made under the title trust, the defect in the taxation disposition can be deemed significant, but if the tax office can clearly ascertain whether the transfer registration was made under the title trust, it cannot be deemed that the defect is apparent, and even if the transfer registration was made under the title trust, it cannot be deemed that the transfer registration was made under the name of the plaintiff, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the defendants were the taxpayer under the name of the first instance court, who is the owner of the real estate, and that the transfer registration of this case was made under the name of the plaintiff.