early 201J 2313 ( December 01, 201)

It is difficult to recognize that it is a trustee of transferred house.

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff entered as the transferor under the sales contract, the transferee deposited part of the purchase price into the Plaintiff’s account, and the transfer income tax was paid in excess of the transfer income tax but was transferred to the Plaintiff’s account in the name of the Plaintiff, it is difficult to recognize that the transferred house is a house under title trust or was used by theft.

2012Guhap1130 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

KimA

The director of the Southern Incheon District Office

October 26, 2012

November 23, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposing capital gains tax of KRW 000 on the Plaintiff on September 8, 2010 shall be revoked.

1. Details of disposition;

A. On February 3, 2003, the Plaintiff acquired a house of 56.24 square meters of a single house of 000 O-dong, Incheon Dong-gu (hereinafter “the instant house”) on April 30, 2003, but transferred it to Nonparty D (hereinafter “the instant contract”) on April 30, 2003, and on June 14, 2003, the Plaintiff reported and paid the transfer income tax with the transfer value of KRW 000, and the acquisition value of KRW 00,000, and the tax amount of tax amount of KRW 00.

B. On December 1, 2010, the Defendant notified the director of the Yangcheon Tax Office of the materials suspected of underreporting the transfer value, conducted a tax investigation, and considered the acquisition value reported by DD as the actual transfer value, and issued the instant disposition to correct and notify the Plaintiff of KRW 000 of the transfer income tax for the year 2003.

C. On October 14, 2010, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed a request for pre-assessment review with the Defendant on October 14, 2010, but was non-adopted on November 12, 2010, and filed an objection with the Director of the Central District Tax Office on February 15, 2011, dismissed on March 24, 201, and requested the Tax Tribunal for a trial on June 21, 201, but dismissed on December 1, 201.

[Grounds for Recognition] The non-speed facts, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 3 1, 2, Gap evidence 4, 5, 6, and Eul evidence 1, and Eul evidence 2 1, and Eul evidence 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff asserts that the instant disposition is unlawful as it violates the substance over form principle on the following grounds.

1) The instant housing was purchased and sold by stealing Kim E, the Plaintiff’s shape without permission, by stealing the Plaintiff’s name.

2) Even if it is not recognized that the name theft of household and KimE was not recognized, and at least, the instant house was trusted in trust to the Plaintiff by Nonparty KimE, who is the Plaintiff’s punishment.

(b) relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

1) First of all, according to each entry of KimE, as to whether or not KimE purchased or sold the instant house by using the Plaintiff’s name without permission, and the contact point on the seller’s name under the instant sales contract is recognized as the contact point of KimE, a type of the Plaintiff, but it is insufficient to recognize that KimE purchased or sold the instant house by stealing the Plaintiff’s name without permission, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

2) Next, as to whether KimE has title trust with the Plaintiff, the person registered as the owner of the real estate is presumed to have acquired ownership through due process and cause, and the fact that the registration was based on title trust has the burden of proof to the claimant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da90883, Apr. 24, 2008). According to the evidence Nos. 3-1 and 2-2, it is presumed that the Plaintiff owned the instant house from February 3, 2003 to April 30, 203, and the evidence Nos. 9 is difficult to find that the Plaintiff had no other assertion that the Plaintiff had acquired the instant real estate under the name of the Plaintiff, including the following circumstances, and that the transferor under the sales contract of this case Kim Jong-soo was Kim, and that the Plaintiff had no additional assertion that the purchase price of the foregoing house was transferred from the Plaintiff under the name of 200, and that the Plaintiff had no additional assertion that it had been transferred to the Plaintiff under the name of 2000.

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

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.