Seoul Administrative Court 201Gudan19713, 2012.29

National Tax Service Review and Transfer 2011-0031 (Law No. 29, 2011)

Any disposition that imposes capital gains tax on a title trustee merely is illegal.

In light of the circumstances leading up to lending the name, the process of acquiring and transferring the land, the details and contents of the third party’s statement regarding the financing flow and financing cannot be easily rejected, and the credibility of the testimony cannot be easily rejected. In full view of the third party’s role in the process of filing a tax return and filing an objection, the third party is deemed to have entrusted the name of the land to the Plaintiff.

2012Nu19382 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing or correcting capital gains tax

Park AAA

Head of the Do Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2011Gudan19713 decided May 29, 2012

June 26, 2013

July 24, 2013

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3. On November 1, 2010, the first instance court's decision 1, 201, 'as of November 15, 2010', and '00 won' is corrected as won.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 for the year 2000 against the Plaintiff on November 1, 2010 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. cite the judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's ruling is the same as that of the court of first instance, and it is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. A part which is dismissed or added in the judgment of the first instance;

o 2 pages 9, 10 on November 15, 2010, and 00 won are '1 November 1, 2010' and 000 won.

o The fourth, fourth, and fourth (based on recognition) are as follows:

[Reasons for Recognition] The aforementioned evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 13 (including paper numbers), the first instance court and this court's testimony and the whole purport of the arguments

o 4 The following shall be added to the second below:

[The court also made testimony in accordance with the above circumstances, and it seems difficult to readily reject the credibility of testimony considering the following circumstances: (a) as a certified broker, the circumstances leading up to borrowing the name from the Plaintiff; (b) the process of acquiring and transferring the land in this case; and (c) the details and details of the statement on the financial flow and financing related thereto, etc., relatively consistent and natural. Furthermore, considering the acquisition and transfer of the land in this case; (b) the role of the drilling and the Plaintiff in the process of filing a tax return and the objection; and (c) the criminal complaint filed by the Plaintiff against the Subdivision, etc., it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff in relation to the land in this case is merely the title trustee who lent the name to the Subdivision, the actual owner (if considering the newly submitted evidence, it is difficult to view otherwise). The Defendant’s assertion is unacceptable

3. Conclusion

The decision of the court of first instance is justifiable. The defendant's appeal is dismissed. However, since it is clear that the "1.15" and "00 won" in paragraph (1) of the decision of the court of first instance are erroneously written, it is corrected.