2010west1631 (2010.08.02)

The disposition in respect of which the transferor of the real estate transferred on the date of termination of the agreement of gift was deemed the initial witness

The registration of transfer of ownership of a gift is cancelled on the grounds of cancellation of agreement, and the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of a third party was completed on the same day on the same day, but the original donor did not have any reason to cancel the donation contract, and there is no evidence to objectively verify the details of use of the sale price, and thus the original and original transfer is legitimate.

Seoul Administrative Court 2010Gudan23913 ( December 28, 2011)

Republic of Korea, AAA and one other

Head of the Do Tax Office

September 7, 2011

September 28, 2011

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 20,962, and 310 as to each of the Plaintiffs on March 16, 2010 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 28, 2005, the gift on the same day was made on December 28, 2005 as the cause for registration and the registration of ownership transfer was completed for each one-third portion in the name of the plaintiffs and the plaintiff-friendly women of BB, who are the mother of the plaintiff-style.

B. On November 7, 2006, the registration of cancellation was completed on October 27, 2006 with respect to the above transfer of ownership in the names of the Plaintiffs and ParkCC, and the registration of cancellation was completed on October 27, 2006, and the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the formerD was completed on October 25, 2006 on the same day, and the second BB died on February 8, 2007.

C. On March 16, 2010, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition imposing capital gains tax of KRW 20,962,310 on the Plaintiffs on March 16, 2010, respectively.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 11, 13 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1, 2, and 5

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

B had cancelled the gift contract on the forest land of this case and transferred the transfer price of KRW 147,50,000 to B to BD. The transfer price of KRW 147,50,000 was paid to BB for the repayment of loans to EE cooperatives ( KRW 75,00,000), the nursing expenses ( KRW 18,000), Park GG, New HH, and Seo II for the repayment of loans ( KRW 8,000,000,000,000,000) and funeral procedures. Accordingly, the instant disposition that reported the Plaintiffs to the transferor is unlawful.

(b) Fact of recognition;

(1) On September 29, 2006, Doddd had been put to the Plaintiffs’ application on September 29, 2006, and entered into a sales contract for the instant forest upon consultation with theJ. From among the owners of the instant forest land, ParkCC had been in the place of the contract, and theJ said that the Plaintiffs did not go together due to the fact that they were the Plaintiffs.

(2) At the time of the sales contract, the seller entered into the contract as ParkCC and the plaintiffs (the ClaimantJ is the representative of the plaintiffs), and as a special agreement, the seller cancelled the donation and registered it to BB, and changed the contract date to October 25, 2009.

(3) On October 25, 2006, 2006, the ICJ demanded that all Do Governors prepare a new contract under the name of BB, and the sales contract concerning the forest of this case, which was entered into BB with the seller as the contract date, was re-established.

(4) The remainder of the forest land of this case was paid on October 27, 2006. At the time of the receipt, each Do Governor stated it as ParkCC and the plaintiffs, and ParkCC, Park J, Park J, and Park Jae-A. The forest land of this case was completed with the establishment registration of a mortgage amounting to KRW 7.5 million prior to the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the plaintiffs, with the establishment registration of a mortgage amounting to KRW 1,00,000,000,000 won as the secured debt of the above collateral on October 27, 2006.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4 Eul evidence Nos. 4 and testimony of Jeon-D

C. Determination

The following facts revealed as above: (i) the person leading to the sales contract of the forest of this case between Dodd and Dod are the JJ, and the JJ concluded the sales contract of the forest of this case as the representative of the plaintiffs at the time of the cancellation of the contract of donation of the forest of this case; (ii) the B did not objectively confirm whether Dod had the intent to rescind the contract of donation of this case; and (iii) the J seems to have received the sale price of the forest of this case from Dod Dod as the representative of the plaintiffs at the time of receipt; and (iv) the 75 million won out of the sale price of the forest of this case was used to dispose of the forest of this case for the secured debt of the instant forest of this case; (iii) even if the plaintiffs did not sell the forest of this case, the plaintiffs, who were the owners, should have actually paid the forest of this case; and therefore, (B) the remaining amount of the forest of this case cannot be objectively asserted as the transfer price of the forest of this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed in entirety as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.