Cho Jae-chul201 Jeon 2342 (Law No. 105, 2011)

It is against the principle of trust and good faith to assert real estate title trust after the imposition.

The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant real estate title trust was made is contrary to the principle of trust and good faith, only after the Defendant’s disposition of this case was issued, after completing business registration by pretending that the instant real estate acquired in title trust was leased to the truster.

Article 15 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2011Revocation of revocation of the imposition of value-added tax

XX

Head of Public Tax Office

May 16, 2012

June 20, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On June 1, 2011, the Defendant revoked the imposition of value-added tax of KRW 000 for the first term of 2010 against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 15, 2009, J. XX (hereinafter referred to as " XX") completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale on January 7, 2009, the registration of ownership transfer was completed for the Plaintiff on January 7, 2009, when the voluntary auction procedure was completed for the instant real estate, and on January 12, 201, the registration of ownership transfer was completed for the sale of the instant real estate to KimA on January 12, 201.

B. On January 17, 2009, the Plaintiff registered a real estate rental business with the instant real estate as its place of business, and was refunded KRW 000 in value-added tax at the time of preliminary return of value-added tax for the first quarter of January 2009.

C. On January 1, 2010, the Plaintiff converted the type of taxation from a general taxable person to a simplified taxable person, and did not file a return of value-added tax pursuant to Article 26-2 of the Value-Added Tax Act. On June 1, 2011, the Defendant decided and notified 00 won of value-added tax for the first term of 2010 to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on June 17, 2011, but the National Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on September 5, 201.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence I, 2, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

XX around February 2009, only trusted the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, an employee, to obtain a loan of the instant real estate as collateral, and the actual owner of the instant real estate is not the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff did not acquire income by leasing the instant real estate. Therefore, the instant disposition of taxation premised on the Plaintiff’s act of leasing the instant real estate as the owner of the instant real estate was unlawful.

B. Determination

1) In addition to the purport of the entire pleadings as stated in the evidence Nos. 3, 4, 9, and 8, the following facts can be acknowledged: (i) the Plaintiff entered into a title trust agreement with the Plaintiff with respect to the instant real estate for the purpose of obtaining a loan, and completed the registration of ownership transfer; and (ii) the Plaintiff transferred KRW 000 from the Defendant on May 11, 2009, the amount of value-added tax refund by the Defendant, on May 13, 2009, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 00 to ChoB, a representative director of XX, the title trust, and the actual owner of the instant real estate is not the Plaintiff, but the actual owner of the instant real estate.

2) As to this, the Defendant’s assertion is not acceptable as it goes against the principle of good faith, even if it is alleged by the Plaintiff.

The principle of trust and good faith in relation to the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law is applied only when it is recognized that there is a need to protect specific trust even if the principle of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law.

If the purport of the entire pleadings is added to the health account and evidence Nos. 1 through 10 (including the number of pages), the Plaintiff prepared a false real estate sales contract with the purport of purchasing the real estate of this case from XX on August 4, 2008, and applied for the registration of the real estate (lease) to the Defendant on January 9, 2009. ② The Plaintiff filed a report on early refund of value-added tax for 1 year, 2009 with the Plaintiff’s account opening statement under the name of the Plaintiff on April 23, 2009, and the Plaintiff’s tax base and value-added tax return to the Plaintiff on May 11, 2009 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200 won for a new bank account under the Plaintiff’s name), and the Plaintiff’s tax base and value-added tax return to the Plaintiff on July 20 and 205, 209 to the extent that the Plaintiff was entitled to receive the tax amount under the name of the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant's defense is justified, and the plaintiff's assertion that the disposition of this case is unlawful is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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