Since the sales contract for commercial buildings has been legally rescinded and lost its effect, the disposition imposing tax on the transfer of commercial buildings by deeming it as the supply of goods is illegal.

Since a sales contract for a commercial building has been lawfully rescinded and lost its validity, the effect of the change in real rights has been retroactively lost, and thus the commercial building has not been supplied from the beginning, the imposition based on the premise of the transfer of the commercial building is illegal, and the designation of the second taxpayer is illegal because the plaintiff cannot be seen as a person who actually exercises the rights to the shares

2010Guhap39878 Such revocation as corporate tax, etc.

○○ Inc

○ Head of tax office

March 31, 201

April 14, 2011

1. The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 4,600,462,870 for the second period of 2003 against the Plaintiff on March 17, 2008 shall be revoked.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The △△-gu △△-dong Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “△△-dong Co., Ltd.”) owned 16-1 and 12 parcels and 21 and 22 Dongs (hereinafter referred to as “△△-dong”) on the ground of the △△-dong Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “△△-dong Co., Ltd.”). On July 1, 2001, the △△-dong Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Lessee”) established by the lessee of the △△-dong Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “△-dong Co., Ltd.”) was decided to sell the purchase price of 8.3 billion won at the voluntary auction

B. On July 16, 2002, 200, ○○○○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “○○○○○○”) entered into an agreement with the lessee on the cancellation of the instant sales contract, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the same day (hereinafter referred to as “instant sales contract”), and subsequently, ○○○○○ Co., Ltd suspended the auction procedure against the lessee and filed a lawsuit claiming the cancellation of the right to collateral security against the lessee’s association. On September 27, 2003, 2003, ○○○○○ entered into an agreement with the lessee on December 9, 2003 on the cancellation of the instant sales contract with the lessee’s association. Accordingly, the lessee acquired ownership by fully paying the purchase price in the auction procedure against the seller’s shops, which took place on December 10, 2003.

C. On January 22, 2002, the Plaintiff was a corporation established under the State Act of the Netherlands, which was established under the State Act of the United States on June 29, 2002, and provided consultation with the ○○○○○○ that the Plaintiff wants to take over, on June 29, 2002, about the number of the Plaintiff’s shares, and the Plaintiff acquired the Plaintiff’s shares 21,250 shares (42.5%) on September 16, 2003 from Malaysia, respectively.

D. On January 13, 2006, the Defendant: (a) on December 10, 2003, ○○○○○○ acquired 1.40 billion won from the △ Industries from the purchase price; and (b) on December 10, 2003, acquired profits from the transfer of ○○ store to 2,12.8 billion won; and (c) on December 10, 2003, ○○○○’s lessee association’s transfer of the part of the building constitutes the supply of goods under Article 6(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act; (d) on the same day, the Defendant imposed penalty tax on KRW 7,562,985,940, including penalty tax, on the ground that the transfer of the part of the building to ○○○○○ store’s lessee’s association constitutes the supply of goods under Article 6(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act; and (d) on the same day, △△△ and △△△○n and Doton designated the secondary obligor as the secondary taxpayer

E. After that, on March 10, 2008, the Defendant revoked the designation of the secondary taxpayer and the notice for payment of value-added tax on the ground that △△○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and in substance, the Plaintiff exercised shareholder rights as the oligopolistic shareholder (see, e.g., evidence 1 and 2). On the same day, the Plaintiff designated the Plaintiff as the secondary taxpayer and issued the notice for payment of value-added tax amounting to KRW 8,549,950,450, 450 calculated by adding the additional and increased additional charges to the value-added tax amount equivalent to the share ratio (85%) (see, e.g., evidence 50

F. On December 30, 2008, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to reduce the value-added tax amount of ○○○○ by 4,033,017,336 won on the ground that 32.8 billion won of the 2,12.8 billion won of the 2,12.8 billion won of the shares of ○○○○○’s 42,500 won of the shares of ○○○○’s 42,500 won (85%) was deducted from the transfer price of ○○○○○’s ○○○○. Accordingly, the Defendant reduced the Plaintiff’s value-added tax amount to 4,60,462,870 won of the shares of ○○○○○○’s ○○○ 32.5 billion, which was assessed as the transfer price (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 49, Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) ○○럼은 □□상가를 매수하여 소유권이전등기를 마친 후에도 □□상가에 대한 강제관리가 계속 진행되면서 임의경매의 근거가 된 근저당권의 말소청구소송 등 관련 소송이 장기화되어 ♧♧선 주식회사(이하 '♧♧선'이라고 한다)로부터 조달한 금원의 이자비용이 증가하자 2003. 9. 27. 및 2003. 12. 9. □□산업 및 임차인조합과 사이의 합의에 따라 이 사건 매매계약을 합의해제 하였다. 위 합의해제에 따라 위 매매계약 및 그에 따른 물권 변동이 소급적으로 효력을 상실하였으므로, ○○럼은 애초부터 □□상가를 취득하지 아니한 것이 된다. 따라서 ○○럼이 2003. 12. 10. □□상가의 소유자로서 임차인조합에게 □□상가를 1,800억 원(= 2,128억 원 - 328억 원)에 양도하였음을 전제로 한 이 사건 처분은 위법하다.

(2) Even if ○○○○○ transferred a tenant’s title to the lessee’s association on December 10, 2003, 80 billion won out of the 180 billion won assessed as the transfer proceeds, regardless of the transfer of ○○○○’s title, the return of the right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment against the lessee’s association, etc. should not be included in the transfer proceeds.

(3) The Plaintiff is a corporation that provides financial consulting and investment advisory services, and the ○○ Forum provided advice on acceptance, etc., and it is not a shareholder who actually exercises the right to ○○ Forum’s shares 46,250 shares (85%) by trusting the name of ○○ and △△○ton in the name of △△ and △△○ton.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) Default on the △△ Industry, compulsory administration and commencement of auction procedures for △△ Family

(A) The △△ Group, which had been in the payment guarantee relation, was a juristic person holding the △△ branch. When the △△ Group, which was in the payment guarantee relation, defaulted on November 197, it was processed due to the bankruptcy. The △△ Group and the bond group of the △ branch of the △ branch, demanded the repayment of the debt to the △ branch, completed the provisional attachment registration against the △ branch, and the lessee of the △ branch established the △ branch and transferred the lease deposit claim amounting to 45 billion won for the △ branch to the △ branch.

(B) The lessee union acquires the right to collateral security claims, etc. established in the △ branch from around 1999 to April 2001, thereby securing the status of the principal creditor for the insurance industry. The lessee union applied for compulsory administration against the △ branch on September 19, 200 upon receiving a decision of compulsory administration order from the △ branch on September 21, 200, and completed the registration of the entry on September 21, 200. The lessee filed a request for auction against the △ branch on December 11, 200 and completed the registration of the company on December 14, 200 upon receiving a decision of commencement of the auction from the same court on December 11, 200.

(C) After that, the insurance industry was promoted a sales negotiation with AAri and BB, but failed. On July 1, 2001, the lessee union was determined to permit the sale of KRW 85.3 billion at the above auction procedure (the date of payment for purchase was July 24, 2002).

(2) Conclusion, etc. of a sales contract between ○○ and △ Industries

(가) ○○럼의 종전 상호는 주식회사 CC리이고 사실상 휴면법인이었는데, 진AA은 □□상가를 인수하고자 2002. 6. 14.경 그 지분 전부를 취득한 다음 상호를 현재와 같이 변경하였다. ○○럼은 2002. 6. 29. DD캐피탈 아시아리미티드의 조BB, 남CC을 통하여 DD김이 대표이사로 있던 원고와 사이에 □□상가 매수와 관련하여 자문을 제공받기로 하는 컨설팅 계약(갑 1호증)을 체결하고, 그 계약일로부터 1년이 경과하도록 ○○럼이 대출원리금을 상환하지 아니하는 경우 ○○럼의 주식 42,500주에 대한 매매예약완결권을 원고가 갖는다는 내용의 주식매매예약(갑 19호증)을 체결하였으며, 그 외에 자금운용계약(갑 18호증), 경영권포괄위임약정(갑 20호증)도 체결하였다. ○○럼은 같은 날 원고를 통하여 ♧♧선으로부터 1,300억 원을 연 25%의 이자율로 대출받았고(갑 14호증의 1, 2 참조), 원고는 같은 날 ○○럼의 위 대출금채무에 대하여 연대책임을 진다는 내용의 지급보증을 하였다(갑 15호증 참조).

(나) ○○럼은 2002. 7. 16. □□산업과 사이에 □□상가를 매매대금 1,400억 원에 매수하는 내용의 이 사건 매매계약을 체결하였고(갑 10호증 참조), ♧♧선에 대한 대 출금채무에 대한 담보제공을 위하여 같은 날 □□산업으로부터 소유권이전등기를 넘겨받아 □□상가에 관하여 채무자 ○○럼, 채권최고액 1,690억 원, 근저당권자 주식회사 한미은행으로 하는 근저당권설정등기를 마쳤으며(♧♧선이 주식회사 한미은행에 특정 금전신탁 한 자금을 대출하는 형식을 취한 관계로 근저당권자도 주식회사 한미은행이 되었다), EE부동산신탁 주식회사(2002. 9. 16. GG부동산신탁 주식회사로 상호가 변경되었고, 이하 상호 변경 전・후를 불문하고 '신탁회사'라고 한다) 명의로 신탁등기를 하였다.

(C) According to the instant sales contract, the down payment is KRW 13.7 billion, the intermediate payment is KRW 11.1 billion, and the remainder is KRW 11.1 billion, and the ○○ Forum, as the payment of the purchase-price, repaid in installments the debt of the insurance industry to the Korea Asset Management Corporation. Of which, 9.7 billion, the payment of down payment is substituted by the payment of down payment, and the intermediate payment is substituted by the payment deposit in order to cancel the burden recorded in the registry book of △△.

(D) On the other hand, on April 28, 2003 and July 11, 2003, 2003, ○○○○ was assigned from the △ Industry to the lessee, partnership, or individual members of the △ Industry the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment, the right to claim the compensation for damages arising from tort (see evidence 17-1, 2 of the evidence), and on September 17, 2003, the provisional attachment was executed on the property owned by the lessee association.

(3) Payment, etc. of the purchase price of ○○ Forum

(A) On July 19, 2002, in order to suspend the auction procedure and cancel all the security rights established in the △△ branch, ○○○○ deposited the amount of KRW 99.6 billion with the lessee association as the principal deposit in the △△ branch on July 19, 2002 (see Evidence A2 and 37), on July 22, 2002, filed a lawsuit of cancellation of the right to collateral security and objection on the ground of the above deposit in the name of the △ branch and the trust company on July 22, 2002, while filing a lawsuit of cancellation of the right to collateral security and objection against the △ branch on the ground of the above deposit in the name of the △ branch and the trust company on July 22, 2002 (△△ branch

(B) Accordingly, the auction procedure is suspended, and on February 4, 2003, in the lawsuit of objection to cancellation and claim of the above right to collateral security, the ○○ Forum won in full, but the lessee association brought an appeal and continued the appellate trial (△△△ High Court 2003Na16964). In the case of the above application for revocation of compulsory administration, the decision favorable to the lessee association was made on April 30, 2003, and the compulsory administration was continued against the lessee association.

(C) On the other hand, on February 3, 2003, the ○○○ Forum deposited the amount of KRW 2.5 billion additionally, and on Nov. 1, 2002, deposited the amount of KRW 22.7 billion with respect to the Korea Asset Management Corporation of △ Industries until Aug. 1, 2003, such as subrogated the amount of KRW 22.3 billion with respect to its obligation to the Korea Asset Management Corporation, etc., the total amount of KRW 1,23.3 billion, and the payable amount reaches KRW 16.7 billion. The lessee union received the above deposited amount of KRW 1,02.1 billion in total over several occasions from July 20, 2002 to February 1, 2006 (see evidence 24-1, 24-2).

(4) Transfer, etc. of ○○ stocks

(가) 원고와 ○○럼 사이에 2002. 6. 29. 각종 합의서가 체결된 지 6개월이 지났음에 도 불구하고, 위와 같이 □□상가와 관련한 소송 등 분쟁이 해결되지 아니하고 이에 따라 ♧♧선에 대한 대출원리금의 변제도 제대로 이루어지지 아니하자, ○○럼의 주주인 진AA은 자신(일부는 명의수탁자인 윤지열과 조영도의 명의로 보유하였다)이 보유하던 ○○럼의 주식 중 26,250주(52.5%)를 액면금액(1주당 5,000원)으로 원고에게 양도하기로 하였다.

(B) On November 28, 2002, the Plaintiff: (a) provided advice to acquire the shares of ○○ Forum and entered into an investment advisory contract to receive contingent fees therefrom (see subparagraph 1, 26-2 of the evidence); (b) on December 29, 2002, Jina entered into a contract on December 29, 200, with 5,000 shares of ○○ Forum and 5,300 shares; (c) transferred 5,30 shares of ○○ Forum to the Plaintiff’s ChoB, SouthCC, and E; and (d) transferred 5,30 shares of ○○ Forum to ○○○○○○, respectively (see subparagraph 1 of the evidence 7-1). Meanwhile, the Plaintiff entered into a contract on May 14, 2003, between △△ and △△, providing advice to △○○ in relation to the acquisition (see the evidence 13-1, 136).

(C) On May 30, 2003, the Plaintiff, ○○○○○○○○○○○, a member of which was owned by Jina, agreed with Jina, on May 30, 200, to provide advice by Jina on the sale or the provision of re-loan, and to exercise the right to full payment of stock purchase and sale (see subparagraph 13-3). Meanwhile, on June 1, 2003, the Korea Development Bank entered into a call options agreement to transfer the shares of ○○○○○○○○○○○, between Jina and Jina, 16,250 (32.5%).

(D) On September 19, 2003, △△ and △△ Do-dong Pursuant to each of the above agreements, the shares held by ○○○○○○ was transferred (see subparagraph 1 through 3 of the evidence No. 28, and subparagraph 7-2 of the evidence No. 7) from Jina on September 19, 200, respectively. The shares held by 21,250 shares (42.5%) were transferred to Jina, etc. during the process of acquiring the shares as above, and the △△△ and Do-dongton transferred the shares purchase price to Jina, etc. during the process of acquiring the shares, and completed the report under the Foreign Exchange Control Act (see, e.g., evidence No. 29 through 35 (including each number). At that time, Jina transferred the shares purchase price to the Plaintiff.

(마) 한편, ♧♧선은 2003. 3. 25. 증권거래소로부터 타인에 대한 금전대여를 공시 하지 아니하였다는 이유로 불성실 공시법인으로 지정되고(갑 36호증 참조) 임차인조합 으로부터 대여금을 회수할 것을 여러 차례 요구받자, 2003. 6.경 ○○럼에 대하여 2003. 9. 29.까지 투자자금이 회수되지 아니하면 신탁회사를 통하여 □□상가를 매각하겠다고 통보하였다.

(5) Agreement between ○○○, Lessee’s association, and △ Industry

(A) On September 27, 2003, 000, ○○ Forum agreed with the lessee’s association to not file an additional lawsuit against the lessee’s association or its members (hereinafter referred to as “agreement on September 27, 2003”). The content of the agreement was to pay KRW 80 billion to the lessee’s association with the ○○ Forum, instead of filing any lawsuit against the lessee’s association, such as return of unjust enrichment or claim for damages against the lessee’s association, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “the agreement”). The agreement was that ○○ Forum paid KRW 80 billion to the ○○ Forum (the total sum of KRW 2.7 billion for additional repayment deposit, KRW 2.7 billion for the ○○○ Asset Management Corporation, and KRW 5.4.8 billion for the lessee’s association’s damage claim against the lessee’s association).

(나) 그리고 ○○럼의 주주인 ◇◇타와 ☆☆턴은 같은 날인 2003. 9. 27. 임차인조합 과 사이에 ○○럼 주식 42,500주(85%)를 매도하기로 하는 계약을 체결하였는데(이하 '2003. 9. 27.자 주식매매계약'이라고 하고, 갑 39호증, 을 8호증 참조), 그 합의 내용은 주식매매대금을 1,328억 원에서 ○○럼이 ♧♧선 및 그 계열사에 대하여 부담하는 채무액을 공제한 금액으로 하되, 1,000억 원은 임차인조합이 ○○럼의 ♧♧선 등에 대한 채무를 인수하는 것으로 지급에 갈음하고, 나머지 주식매매대금으로 임차인조합이 ◇◇타와 ☆☆턴에게 합계 328억 원을 지급하는 것이었다. 한편, 임차인조합은 1차 대금 1,000억 원의 지급과 동시에 ◇◇타와 ☆☆턴 또는 그들이 지정하는 자에게 채권 최고액 500억 원으로 하는 근저당권을 설정하기로 하였고, ◇◇타와 ☆☆턴은 신탁회사와 □□산업으로 하여금 임차인조합에게 제기한 청구이의의 소, 경매정지신청 등 □□상가에 대한 일체의 소송 및 신청을 취하하도록 하기로 하였다(계약서 제5항 참조).

(C) On September 29, 2003, the Plaintiff, the lessee, and the insurance industry paid KRW 7.7 billion and KRW 4.0 billion, respectively, to the insurance industry of the Plaintiff and the lessee’s association. Of the compulsory management fund for the insurance company for the insurance company for the insurance company, the portion of the claim for the ○○ Forum shall be paid to the insurance industry immediately upon receipt by the Bright, and each party agreed to withdraw legal measures, such as various applications, at the same time as the above agreement (hereinafter referred to as the “Agreement”).

(6) Cancellation, etc. of the sales contract at △△ branch

(A) On December 9, 2003, ○○○ entered into a contract with the insurance industry for the purpose of rescinding the instant sales contract (hereinafter referred to as “the rescission of the agreement,” and see evidence A. 52). According to the rescission of the instant agreement, ○○○, the buyer, issued documents necessary for the procedure of registering cancellation of ownership transfer registration to the insurance industry, the seller, and agreed to receive the refund of the money paid with the purchase price, in consultation with the recipient of the relevant money.

(나) ○○럼은 임차인조합과의 2003. 9. 27.자 합의에 따라 임차인조합으로부터 합의 금 800억 원을 지급받고, 그 합의금으로 ♧♧선 등에 대한 대출원리금을 상환하였다.

(다) 임차인조합은 2003. 9. 27.자 주식매매계약에 따라 ○○럼의 ♧♧선에 대한 채무액 1,000억 원을 ♧♧선에 지급하였으나, 그 후 □□상가 측 최영재가 보유하는 ○○럼의 주식 15%까지도 양도하라고 요구하는 등으로 다툼이 발생하여 주식양도가 이루어지지 아니하고 있다.

(D) The ○○○ Forum withdrawn the lawsuit filed against the lessee association in relation to the ○○ Store, and the auction procedure for the △○ Store was followed again, and the lessee association completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the "successful bid due to the voluntary auction on December 10, 2003" (However, the transfer registration under the name of the ○○ Forum and the trust company was not cancelled, and this point is concerned.

A. See the certified copy of the evidence No. 6

(g)Concluding consulting for the collection of claims, and transfer of bonds for the purchase price of shares in △△ and △△ton;

(A) On December 8, 2003, the day before the cancellation date of the instant agreement, the Plaintiff entered into a separate consulting agreement for collecting the purchase price of shares to the lessee association (see, e.g., the evidence No. 41-2), and on December 10, 2003, the lessee association did not comply with the lessee association’s obligation to pay the purchase price under the share purchase agreement between △△ and △△ and △△, and the lessee association and △△ and △△, △△ and △△, respectively. The Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the lessee association and △△ and △△, to consent to the agreement (see, e.g., the evidence No. 42, No. 11-1, No. 2).

(B) On January 14, 2009, January 23, 2009, and February 12, 2009, the lessee’s association paid to the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to KRW 15.7 billion of the share purchase price to the Plaintiff. Of the above amount, the Plaintiff transferred 12.1 billion of the loan to ○○○○ Forum’s Korean industrial investment, excluding KRW 3.0 billion of the loan and KRW 650,526,025 of the advisory fee, out of the above amount (see, e.g., the number of 43 through 46).

(C) On February 6, 2009 and the 13th day of the same month, ○○○ filed a report on KRW 5,947,962,146 ($4,224,780,444) with the designated foreign exchange bank, in accordance with the Foreign Exchange Transaction Regulations, and then remitted the amount to its overseas account. △△△△ also returned the sum of KRW 6,177,531,440 ($ 4,381.184) to the St Bank after reporting it to the St Bank (see, e.g., Category 47,48 (including each number)).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 7, 10 through 48, 52 through 55, Eul 4, 7, 8, 10 through 12 (including each of the numbers), Gap 8, 9, 5, 6, 9 (including each of the numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) Whether the imposition of value-added tax on ○○ Forum is legitimate

The imposition of value-added tax on a building is unlawful (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu13941, Mar. 10, 1998). Meanwhile, Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which is the basis of the principle of substantial taxation, provides that if there is a person to whom the ownership of income, profit, property, act, or transaction is merely nominal, and there is another person to whom such income, profit, or transaction belongs, the said person shall be liable for tax payment. However, the tax authority shall not be deemed as having taken a method of entirely different legal effect from the transaction chosen by the parties on the ground that the said party’s genuine legal effect is disregarding the legal effect and changing economic effect. In short, the imposition of value-added tax on the building is unlawful (see Supreme Court Decision 200Nu13941, Mar. 10, 1998). It does not infringe on the legal stability or stability of the taxpayer, and thus, does not constitute a legitimate form of taxation without taxation without the law.

In full view of the above facts and the following circumstances acknowledged by the above evidence, the sales contract of this case between ○○ and △ Industries was lawfully rescinded on December 9, 2003 and lost its validity, and accordingly the effect of real rights change was retroactively lost, so ○○○○ was deemed not to have been provided from the beginning with △△△. Therefore, the instant disposition based on the premise that ○○○○ was the owner of ○○ Family on December 10, 2003 and the lessee’s association, and that ○○○ transferred △○ was unlawful without any need to further examine the Plaintiff’s second argument.

(가) ○○럼은 2001년의 경매절차에서 평가된 감정가액이 약 2,000억 원에 달하는 □□상가를 인수하여 연간 240억 원에 이르는 임대수익을 향유하거나 재분양하여 차액 상당의 이익을 얻고자 하였는데, 예상과는 달리 □□상가에 대한 강제관리 및 임차인 조합과 사이의 분쟁이 계속되어 임대수익을 얻을 수 없고 이에 따라 ♧♧선 등에 대 한 대출원리금을 제대로 변제하지 못하여 연 25%의 막대한 금융비용을 감당하기 어렵 게 되자, □□상가의 인수를 포기하는 의미에서 □□산업과 사이에 이 사건 합의해제를 하였던 것으로 보인다.

(B) On the other hand, on December 10, 2003, the lessee union completed the registration of ownership transfer due to the 's successful bid by auction' by fully paying the purchase price of 85.3 billion won to the △△ District Court. This constitutes the supply of goods subject to value-added tax under Article 6(1) of the Added Tax Act and Article 14(1)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Added Tax Act. Accordingly, the △ Industries constitutes a person who supplies the lessee with the store store.

(C) At the time of September 27, 2003, when the actual agreement on the rescission of the contract of this case was reached, the tenant association could not take over the store through the above auction procedure, as the ○○ Forum deposited the debt to the tenant association, and won the loan in the lawsuit of cancellation of the right to collateral security against the tenant association and the lawsuit of objection against the tenant association (the first instance court). Accordingly, as ○○○○○ did not give up the tenant's acceptance of the above lawsuit or did not follow the conclusion of the above lawsuit, the tenant association, who strongly wanted to take over the store, paid an amount of agreement, etc. to ○○ for the consideration of the rescission of the contract of this case, and ○○○ has enjoyed profits therefrom. However, on the sole basis of this circumstance, the tenant association, who is a party to the legal act, and the tenant company chosen by the ○○ Industrial Complex as the party to the contract of this case, did not raise the legal relationship as to the cancellation of the contract of this case.

(D) While the JinA and the Lessee Kim GG’s name on the part of the JinA and the Lessee made an investigation by the prosecutor or the defendant and made a statement that “the purchase price of KRW 2,12.8 billion is KRW 2,12.8 billion to the lessee association of the ○○○ Forum (see evidence A, e.g., evidence B, evidence B, e., evidence B). However, this is merely deemed to mean that the sum of the economic prices exchanged between the ○○ Forum and the lessee’s association and the △ industry is KRW 2,12.8 billion. The statement of such KimG, etc. is inconsistent with the judgment of the Defendant, which is the purchase price of KRW 2,12.8 billion.

(E) Notwithstanding the provision on restitution on the rescission of the instant agreement (see Article 3 of the ○○ Forum and the trust company’s transfer registration under the name of the trust company, as seen earlier, notwithstanding the provision on restitution on the cancellation of the agreement, ○○○○ and the trust company, the third purchaser who acquired the ownership after the registration of the decision on commencement of auction, cannot oppose the lessee’s association, the purchaser who acquired the ownership after the registration of the decision on commencement of auction, in full payment of the purchase price at the above auction procedure, and merely has the right to receive dividends only when the purchase price exceeds the amount distributed to the mortgagee, the provisional attachment obligee, etc., and therefore, in this case where the purchase price exceeds the amount distributed to the mortgagee, the third purchaser was deemed to have not been registered for cancellation of the registration on the transfer of ownership under the name of the third purchaser and the trust company. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the sales contract of this case was not cancelled.

(F) The agreement of September 29, 2003 includes that “3 billion won out of the amount agreed shall be paid immediately after the Plaintiff received the claim of ○○ Forum out of the amount of compulsory administration against △ Family. However, despite the cancellation of the agreement in this case, it is difficult to view it as the premise that ○○○ still has a right to the △ Family. Rather, even if ○○○○ received it later on the premise that ○○ was not paid with the compulsory management fund, it is nothing more than the content that the rescission of the agreement in this case belongs to the △ industry. Accordingly, it cannot be deemed that the cancellation of the agreement in this case actually constitutes the act of transferring the lessee’s association.

(G) On the other hand, there is no evidence to prove that ○○○ was the most likely act to avoid the heavy burden of value-added tax, etc., and that the rescission of the instant agreement was made.

(2) Whether the Plaintiff is a secondary taxpayer

In full view of the above facts of recognition and the following circumstances recognized by the above evidence, the Plaintiff appears to have been in charge of leading role in the number of persons in △△ Family and the sales of ○○○○○○ stocks through consultation contracts between △△△ and △△○ and △○○○○, etc., and the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as a person who acquired 46,250 shares in the name of ○○○○○○○○ and △○○○, and actually exercises the rights to the said shares. Accordingly, the instant disposition on a different premise is unlawful.

(A) Before January 22, 2002, 202, the date of the establishment of the Plaintiff as a juristic person established on April 3, 1997 and October 22, 1996, ○○○ and △△△△ Group, respectively, engaged in a large number of transactions in Korea (see the evidence No. 3-1, No. 2, and evidence No. 5-1, No. 5).

(B) There is no evidence suggesting that the economic benefits or effects in relation to the acquisition of ○○○ stocks are attributed to the Plaintiff due to the payment on the Plaintiff’s account of the purchase price of stocks to be made by △△ and △△, etc. by △△△ and △△△, through the Plaintiff, by receiving the purchase price of stocks from the lessee association through the Plaintiff, etc.

(C) In making a stock acquisition agreement, reporting on acquisition of securities, and reporting on foreign investment between JinA and △△△, the Plaintiff’s ChoB on behalf of △△ and △△ Doton (see evidence 1 through 3, 1, 2, and 35 of evidence A-28, and evidence A-1, 34-1, 2, and 35 of evidence) appears to have been followed by a consulting agreement (see evidence 13-1 through 3, 203) on May 14, 2003 between △B and the Plaintiff, △△△, and △△△, and △△, respectively.

(D) Although the special agreement on the purchase and sale of shares of September 27, 2003 (refer to the evidence No. 40, No. 10) related to the purchase and sale contract of shares of ○○○○○○○, the seller of shares of ○○○○○○ does not specify △△ and △△△△△△, the Plaintiff’s assertion that, at that time, the seller did not separately specify because the purchase and sale price of shares was not paid to the lessee from the lessee

(E) The facts that some executives of △△○ and △△ Doton overlap with each other at the time of the investment advisory contract between the Plaintiff and △△○○○○, and that D Kim, the representative director of the Plaintiff, is signed and sealed (see A. 41-2), and that the consulting contract on May 14, 2003 between △△B and △△ and Doton, between △△△ and Doton, signed and sealed as the director of △△ and Doton (see subparagraph 13-1, 2). However, in light of the contents of the investment advisory contract between the Plaintiff and △△△△ and △△△△△, it is insufficient to recognize that △△△ and △△△△△△, the representative director of the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff’s director, was merely the Plaintiff’s title trustee for ○○○○○ stocks, and there is no other evidence to recognize otherwise.

On the other hand, there is no evidence to view that the investment advisory contract, etc. between ○○ and △△, and the Plaintiff, etc. is merely a nominal contract to conceal the fact of title trust of stocks.

(E) In addition, the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff had motive for holding the title trust of shares in the name of Dolta and Do Do dongton, which is Malaysia, in accordance with the Korea-Malaysia Tax Treaty, is not possible to impose taxes on the gains from the transfer of the shares, and therefore, the Plaintiff’s title trust cannot be presumed based on this.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.