Plaintiff (Law Firm Gyeong & Yang, Attorneys Lee Sung-sung et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Head of Eastern Tax Office

September 3, 2009

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2007Gudan15486 Decided February 23, 2009

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 143,94,040 for the Plaintiff on June 10, 2006 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the part of “a judgment” from the last 3 pages to 5 pages 16 of the judgment of the court of first instance to the last 3 pages 16 of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) therefore, (c) the same is cited by Article 8(2)

2. The part to be mard;

“Determination.”

Where a person who intends to purchase real estate in the real estate auction procedure agrees with another person to obtain a decision of permission for sale in his/her own name and to obtain a decision of permission for sale in another person's name, the person who takes the position of purchaser in the auction procedure is the title holder, so ownership of real estate for auction purpose is acquired by the title holder regardless of who is the person who actually bears the purchase price (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da664, Apr. 29, 2005, etc.). Even if the plaintiff was awarded a successful bid of the non-party 1 among the real estate in this case under the agreement with the non-party 1 as alleged above, as long as the plaintiff was awarded the successful bid in his/her name, the ownership of the above share belongs to the plaintiff, and therefore the transfer income accruing from the transfer thereof belongs to the plaintiff. Thus, the disposition of this case that reported the plaintiff as a taxpayer for capital gains tax cannot be deemed unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, so the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Yu Jong-Un (Presiding Judge)