Early High Court Decision 2009J1866 (Law No. 1031, 2010)

It is reasonable to deem that a contract entered into with the former owner was purchased and transferred in an unregistered state.

It is reasonable to view that the agreement entered into with the former owner was actually purchased and transferred in an unregistered state because all necessary documents were received for the transfer of name, and the land transaction permission was not transferred to the return of land transaction permission, and the former owner's cooperation was sought in selling land to a third party.

2011Guhap140 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

XX Kim

The director of the Southern Incheon District Office

August 31, 2011

September 28, 2011

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposing KRW 99,89,600 on the Plaintiff on March 11, 2010 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The process of transferring ownership of the land of this case

The registration of ownership of the land of 00-0 to 000-0 (hereinafter referred to as the "land of this case") was transferred as follows.

o The registration of ownership transfer has been made to Nonparty KimA on September 5, 2001 on the ground of a successful bid at will on August 27, 2001.

o On March 8, 2006, the registration fee for the transfer of ownership due to the same date in the case of Non-Party XX real estate trust

o Around July 2008, the registration of transfer of ownership (the total purchase price of KRW 1,81,300,000) has been made on the grounds of sale (the total purchase price of KRW 1,81,130,000) in the non-party ChoB, ECC, ED, LE and O

B. Return and payment of transfer income tax by KimA and notification of taxation data by the head of immigration office

On May 31, 2007, KimA returned and paid the transfer income tax on KRW 1.330 million to the head of Leecheon Tax Office. The head of Leecheon Tax Office conducted an on-site investigation of the transfer income tax on the land of this case from October 2008 to October 28, 2008, and as a result, notified the Defendant of the taxation data on the Plaintiff’s non-sale gains without any registration as follows.

o As of March 23, 2005, KimA shall sell the purchase price of KRW 1.330 million to the representative KimF, a △△△△/▽▽△ stock company (hereinafter referred to as "non-party company") to the representative KimF.

o As of July 1, 2005, KimF (However, under the revised sales contract as of July 20, 2005, the seller changed to the non-party company under the revised sales contract as of July 20, 2005), sold in KRW 1.70 million to the plaintiff (after that, under the situation that the plaintiff was not registered again, sold to ChoB et al. through the investment trust).

C. Disposition of this case

On March 11, 2010 after conducting on-site verification of capital gains tax data, the Defendant issued the instant disposition that notified the Plaintiff of KRW 11.3 billion (i.e., the Plaintiff’s purchase price of KRW 1.7 billion - KRW 1.7 billion - KRW 1.81 billion - KRW 1.3 million for the amount of sales to ChoB, etc.) of capital gains tax belonging to the year 2008. In response, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on May 26, 2010, but the appeal was dismissed on August 31, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 5, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 8, 12, 16, 17 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful since he prepared a false sales contract with KimF for the purpose of filing an application for provisional disposition prohibiting the disposal of this case's land as an agent of KimF for KimF, and did not actually purchase the land of this case.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

In addition to the above evidence Eul evidence Nos. 9, 10, 11, and 14 (including each number), the plaintiff prepared a sales contract on the land of this case with KimF as of July 1, 2005, and prepared a modified contract to change the seller to the non-party company as of July 20, 2005. ② The plaintiff, on July 15, 2005, filed an application with the Suwon District Court for provisional disposition on the right to claim ownership transfer registration by subrogation of creditors under the Sungwon-nam Branch Branch Branch 2005Kahap327, as the creditor's right to claim ownership transfer registration by subrogation as the preserved claim of the above creditor, and ③ The plaintiff, upon application of Kim F and KimF, made a claim for ownership transfer registration under the sales contract between Kim F and the above creditor's right to claim ownership transfer registration under the name of the non-party 1, 2005.

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff actually purchased the instant land at KRW 1.7 billion in the status of unregistered purchase from KimF around July 2005, and therefore, the instant disposition is lawful.

On the other hand, the plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff was an agent of KimF based on the statements in Gap's evidence Nos. 1. 11 through 17. 19 through 24 (including each number), witness KimF's testimony. However, since the testimony of Gap's evidence Nos. 7 and 22, and witness KimF is difficult to believe it as it is in light of the relation between the plaintiff and KimF, and the remaining evidence alone lacks to reverse the above recognition, the above evidence is insufficient [The above evidence is indicated as the agent of KimF, while each of the above evidence is indicated as the plaintiff's agent, the above facts and each of the above evidence is recognized as follows, and all of the above evidence acts were committed by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff agreed that the plaintiff becomes a guarantor or a factory owner of the land of this case (including the evidence No. 9) and agreed that the plaintiff would become a new agent of the factory (Evidence No. 16), and it is difficult to view that the plaintiff's assertion that it was for loan between the plaintiff and the above KimF and the plaintiff's allegation for money before and after the sale.

No other evidence exists to acknowledge the instant disposition as unlawful, the instant disposition is lawful.

3. Conclusion

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

shall be ruled.