Early High Court Decision 2014 Jeon 0167 ( November 21, 2014)

The transfer of the land of this case is legitimate because it cannot prove the title trust.

It is insufficient to prove that the transfer of the instant land is a title trust and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Daejeon District Court 2015Gudan10039 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

Does00

Head of Busan District Tax Office

oly 23, 2015

November 13, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 132,629,910 against the Plaintiff on March 6, 2014 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 20, 2003, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on May 20, 2003 with respect to the forest land of 13,616 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “the forest of this case”) located in 00, 00, 000, 00, 000, 000, 000,000,000,0000,000,000.

B. On August 26, 2003, the Plaintiff filed a preliminary return of KRW 564,00 for the transfer income of the forest of this case with the transfer value of KRW 30 million and the acquisition value of KRW 26 million to the Defendant.

C. On March 6, 2014, the Defendant issued to the Plaintiff a disposition to increase the transfer value of the instant forest in KRW 20 million, acquisition value of KRW 26 million, tax base of KRW 170,564,00, and KRW 132,629,910 (including additional tax) for the year 2003 (hereinafter “the increased portion”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1 to 5, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 3 and 8

Each entry, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff is a title trustee who lends the ownership of the forest of this case upon the request of the snow00.Therefore, the disposition of this case is illegal.

B. Determination

1) The burden of proving that there is only nominal ownership of income and there is a person who actually obtains such income (see Supreme Court Decision 84Nu505, Dec. 11, 1984).

2) In light of the above facts, it is difficult for the Plaintiff to believe that the Plaintiff was a title trustee of the forest of this case, the Plaintiff’s testimony of 5 and 6 evidence, the witness 5 and 6 evidence, and the witness 00 testimony of 00, and the testimony of 5 and 6 evidence and 6-1 through 3, and the witness testimony of 00 is insufficient to recognize it solely, and there is no other evidence to prove it otherwise.

3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit, and the instant disposition is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

(c)