Whether a taxpayer is a taxpayer

Since the actual owner of the instant real estate is the Plaintiff, the obligation to pay capital gains tax following the transfer of real estate is the Plaintiff.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. Of the instant lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff Kim Jong-tae, the part that sought partial revocation of the taxation disposition specified in the attached Table 1.6 of the taxation disposition list is dismissed. 2. The remainder of the claim by the Plaintiff Kim Jong-young and the claim by the Plaintiff Kim Jong-△△△△△△△ is dismissed. 3.

1. Determination of this safety (a determination on the taxation disposition stated in attached Form 1. 6)

From January 1, 1989 to December 31 of the same year, Plaintiff ○○○ Private Teaching Institute located in Seoul ○○○○-dong 831-32, 831, was leased to Nonparty 1 and 205,80,000 won real estate income. The Defendant, on January 16, 1991, was the spouse of Plaintiff ○○, who is the principal income earner under Article 80 of the Income Tax Act, added up the said real estate income to the global income of Nonparty ○○, which is the principal income earner under Article 80 of the Income Tax Act, as stated in attached Form 1.6(6) of the tax assessment list (attached 1.1.1 through 6). In addition, there is no dispute between the parties concerned over the imposition of global income tax amount of KRW 39,732,230, 18,068,700.

The income amounting to KRW 205,80,000 received by the same plaintiff from the above ○○○○○, etc. is simply leased only the building site of ○○ Private Teaching Institutes, but rather leased the business right of ○○ Private Teaching Institutes with trademark rights. Thus, this constitutes not real estate income but other income under Article 25 (1) 7 of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the amount of KRW 164,640,00 equivalent to 80/10 of the above income shall be deducted as necessary expenses pursuant to Article 73-2 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act. Thus, the part that exceeds the global income tax amount of KRW 14,685,840, the defense tax amount of KRW 2,979,340, which is the tax amount when the defendant calculates the necessary expenses without deducting the above income from the real estate income, should be revoked.

In light of the purport of Article 80 (1) and (3) of the Income Tax Act, which provides for the aggregate taxation of property income, only the principal income earner shall be deemed liable for tax on the real estate income of other families subject to aggregate taxation of the global income of the principal income earner. Thus, only the principal income earner liable for tax on the whole global income becomes the plaintiff and has the eligibility to seek a revocation of a part of the taxation. Although the family subject to aggregate taxation of other assets, which is not the principal income earner, is the income of himself, even though the property income subject to aggregate taxation is the income of himself/herself, there is no standing to sue to seek a revocation of a part of the tax amount equivalent to the income amount of the assets.

Therefore, the plaintiff Kim Jong-young did not have standing to sue to seek revocation of the 6th taxation disposition imposed on the non-party ○○. Thus, the part of the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case seeking partial revocation of the above taxation disposition is unlawful.

2. Determination on taxation 1 and 2

[2] As to the site, building, and house stated in paragraph (1) through (7) of the real estate list list (the site, building, and house stated in paragraphs (1) through (7) of the same list) on December 15, 1986, the plaintiff Kim △△△△△, who was the son of the plaintiff Kim △△△△, in the future of August 4, 1986 concerning the building of this case, the non-party Kim ○, who was the son of the plaintiff Kim △△△, in the future of August 31, 1986 concerning the building of this case, on May 31, 1986, the land of this case was transferred to the non-party 1, 1989, and the second building of this case was transferred to the plaintiff 1, 1989, and the second building of this case was transferred to the plaintiff 1, 2, 3, 3, and 3, who was the actual owner of the above real estate in the name of the plaintiff 1, and the defendant 3, respectively.

The plaintiff Kim Jong-tae et al. asserted that the plaintiff Kim Jong-tae et al., the first site and the second site and the third buildings of this case, all of which were the same and the real estate actually donated to the above Kim △△△△△, Kim ○, and the defendant's taxation disposition against the plaintiff 1 and the second and third buildings of this case, is not a real estate that was trusted only in the name of the title in the future. The transferor of each real estate of this case, who is the donee, shall not be the above Kim △△△△, Kim ○, and the defendant 1 and

Therefore, as to whether the actual owner of the building site Nos. 1 and 2 and 3 of this case is the plaintiff Kim Jong-chul, Eul evidence Nos. 7 (Written Confirmation), and 1-1 of Eul Nos. 8 (Written Notice Nos. 7 and Eul Nos. 8-1 of the above Nos. 7 of this case. However, there is no evidence to support the testimony of the witness ○○, which corresponds to this, the above assertion of the plaintiff is groundless), Eul Nos. 10 through 13 of the above facts, Eul Nos. 10 through 17 of the above No. 9 (each sales contract), and Eul Nos. 2,10, and 12 through 18 of the above fact that the plaintiff acquired the above real estate from the above owner of the building site Nos. 3 of this case to the above ○○○○△△△△△, the plaintiff acquired the above real estate from the above owner of the building site of this case to the third party 2 of this case to acquire the building site no more than two owners of this case.

Thus, the transferor of each of the above real estate is the plaintiff Kim Young-chul, who is the actual owner, and therefore, the person liable to pay capital gains tax from the transfer of the real estate is the same plaintiff. Thus, the defendant's imposition of capital gains tax, etc. from the transfer of each of the above real estate is legitimate, and therefore the above plaintiff's claim for this part is groundless.

3. Judgment on the third disposition of taxation

On October 25, 1976, the Plaintiff Kim Jong-chul acquired the instant fourth site on August 3, 197, and on July 29, 1986, the building No. 5, which was a house constructed on the said ground, which was transferred on August 3, 197. The Defendant transferred it on July 29, 1986. The Defendant did not dispute between the parties on the fact that the Defendant acquired the instant building No. 2 and 3, and the instant building No. 6, which was located under paragraph (4), and that one household acquired the instant building No. 4 and the instant building No. 5, which was located on February 1, 1991.

In the above 2., the owner of each building in this case is not the same plaintiff, but the non-party Kim ○ and ○○○, and the acquisition of the 6th house in this case is the acquisition of the house for the purpose of moving the residence under Article 6 of the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act. Thus, the transfer of the 4th site and the 5th building in this case by the same plaintiff should be exempted from taxation as the transfer of the 1 household under Article 5. 6 (b) of the Income Tax Act.

The facts that the actual owner of the site of the building Nos. 1 and 2, 3 and 3 of this case is the same as the above No. 2. Thus, at the time of transferring the building No. 4 and 5 of this case, the plaintiff had already owned the site of the building No. 2, 3 and 3 of this case at the time of transferring the building No. 5 of this case. Therefore, regardless of whether the acquisition of the building No. 4 and 5 of this case acquired before the transfer of the building No. 5 of this case constitutes the acquisition of the house for the purpose of moving residence under Article 6 of the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act, the transfer of the building No. 4 and 5 of this case does not fall under the transfer of one house for one household under Article 5 subparag. 6 (i) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the tax disposition No. 3 of this case against which the defendant imposed the transfer income tax, etc. on the above transfer is legitimate, the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of this part of this case on the premise that it

4. Judgment on the 4th taxation disposition

On July 23, 1986, Plaintiff Kim Young-chul acquired the instant 6 house on July 10, 1990, and transferred it on July 10, 199. The Defendant acquired the instant 6 house on December 22, 1989, when Plaintiff Kim Young-dong 983-22, ○○○-dong ○○-dong 983-dong ○○-dong ○○-dong ○○-dong ○○-dong ○○-dong ○○-dong ○○, a member of the same Plaintiff, who is the same household of the same Plaintiff, acquired the instant 7 house, thereby acquiring the instant 3 house, there is no dispute between the parties.

The plaintiff Kim Young-chul, who acquired on December 22, 1989 the same plaintiff and the ○○○○○ Dong 983-222, ○○ Dong, which acquired on December 22, 1989, acquired the house for the purpose of moving the residence prescribed in Article 6 of the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act. The plaintiff Kim Young-dong, who acquired the house of this case on May 8, 1990, had already moved to the United States before its acquisition, cannot be deemed as a family member living together with the same domicile or residence as the plaintiff Kim Young-dong, and therefore, the above 7 house acquired by the plaintiff Kim Young-dong, which is included in the house owned by the one household of the plaintiff Kim Jong-dong, and therefore, the transfer of the 6 house of this case by the plaintiff Kim Jong-gu, Kim Jong-dong, should be exempt from taxation as the transfer of the house

Article 15 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that "one house for one household" shall be deemed that the father and his spouse have resided in △△△△△△△△△△△△ for 1 year or longer, and their father and father have resided in △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△ for 1 year or longer, and under Article 4 (2) 1 of the Act, the resident shall be deemed to have only one household even if △△△△△△△△ was 30 years old, or there is no spouse. Thus, in this case, it shall be deemed that the plaintiff △△△△△△△△△△ was deemed to be a member of △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△, for 9 years or more.

Therefore, in the case of Plaintiff Kim Young-dong, the first household of this case owned three houses by holding the instant 7 house and the instant 00 ○○ Dong Dong Dong Dong Dong Dong Dong-dong at the time of transfer of the instant 6 house. Thus, the instant 4-taxation disposition that the Defendant deemed that the instant 6-house transfer by Plaintiff Kim Young-dong did not constitute one house for one household is lawful, and therefore, the claim for revocation of the said taxation disposition on the premise that it is unlawful is without merit.

5. Judgment on the fifth disposition of taxation

The plaintiff Kim △△△ acquired the housing of this case No. 7 on May 8, 1990 in 120,000,000 won, and the defendant, out of the acquisition price, 75,000,000 won remaining after deducting the lease deposit of KRW 45,00,000 from the acquisition price, shall be deemed to have been donated by the plaintiff Kim Jong-tae, his father, and the fact that the plaintiff recognized the same plaintiff as a donation from his father and rendered the tax disposition of this case No. 5 on February 1, 191 does not dispute between the parties.

The plaintiff Kim △△△ in the above 2. Paragraph 2., the actual owner of the land of this case was the plaintiff Kim △△△ in the purchase of the land of this case, and he used 51,280,000 won for the purchase price of the land of this case as part of the purchase price, and only 23,720,000 won for the remainder of the purchase price was donated from the plaintiff Kim △△ in the purchase of the land of this case, and payment of the balance of the purchase price was made. Thus, the amount received by the plaintiff Kim △△ in the above 23,720,00 won for the above 23,720,000 won for the gift tax of 23,720,000 won for the actual donation of the above tax disposition, and therefore, the part exceeding 723,000 won for the defense tax against the gift tax of this case should be revoked by unlawful means.

On the other hand, there is no dispute between the parties that Plaintiff 1 paid the purchase price of the instant land KRW 51,280,000, and KRW 23,720,000,00,000,000,000,000 from Plaintiff 1, and KRW 51,280,000,00,000,00,00,000,00 was donated by Plaintiff △△△△△△, but the instant land was registered, but the instant land was owned by Plaintiff △△△, but the actual owner was the title trust in the future of Plaintiff △△△△△, and the Plaintiff △△△△ was the same as the previous 2th, and thus, the instant land was not deemed as having been donated by Plaintiff △△△△△, and therefore, the Defendant’s disposition imposing gift tax on Plaintiff △△△△ was lawful, and thus, the Defendant’s claim for gift tax was not reasonable.

6. Conclusion

Therefore, among the lawsuits of this case by the plaintiff Kim Jong-tae, the part seeking the revocation of the 6th taxation disposition of this case is unlawful and dismissed. The remaining claims of the plaintiff and the claims of the plaintiff Kim △△△△△ are all without merit, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff who lost. It is so decided as

June 25, 1992