Seoul Administrative Court-2014-Gu Partnership-2331 (2014.07.04)

Where real estate is re-transfered after transfer of the name by means of transfer of real estate, the actual owner shall bear capital gains tax.

Where real estate is re-transfered after transfer of the name by means of transfer of real estate, the actual owner shall bear capital gains tax.

Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2014Nu57364 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax, etc.

AA

BB Director of the Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2014Guhap2331 decided July 4, 2014

June 10, 2015

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 1,716,346,280 against the plaintiff on April 16, 2013 by the defendant shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment on the plaintiff’s new argument in the court of first instance under Paragraph (2) below, and thus, this Court cited it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the

2. Additional parts

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff leased KRW 1 billion to CCC, and both of the other gains on transfer have been paid KRW 2,50,000 as the transfer price of the instant real estate, and CCC has received all the other gains on transfer, the Plaintiff’s income shall be deemed as interest income from non-business loan amounting to the amount exceeding the above loan principal as KRW 1,50,000,000. Even if it is not interest income, the Plaintiff shall be deemed to have received the right to acquire real estate, i.e., the right to acquire real estate by making an interim omission registration, from CCC, even if it is not interest income. In this case, the above loan amount of KRW 1

B. Determination

It is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff lent KRW 1 billion to CCC only with the statement of evidence Nos. 11-1 through 3, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. As seen in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance court, the real owner of the instant real estate directly received KRW 7.1 billion from the buyer, as the Plaintiff directly received the purchase price of the instant real estate, the Plaintiff’s above assertion on a different premise is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.