Whether capital gains tax from onerous donation is levied by the actual owner who is not the owner in the public register;

It is reasonable to view that the real owner of the instant real estate was not the owner of the public record, but the Plaintiff. Therefore, the instant disposition imposing capital gains tax pursuant to the substance over form principle on the Plaintiff is lawful.

2015Gudan3365 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

AA

BB Director of the Tax Office

March 15, 2016

April 1, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 00,000,000 on the Plaintiff on October 0, 2013 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 서울 ○○구 ○○동 ××-× 소재 토지 및 건물(이하 이 사건 부동산)에 관하여 2001. 00. 00.자 매매를 원인으로 2001. 00. 00. UUU에서 ◇◇◇ 앞으로, 그 중 일부지분에 관하여 2011. 00. 00.자 매매를 원인으로 2012. 00. 00. ◇◇◇에서 ◈◈◈ 앞으로 각 소유권이전등기가 경료되었다.

나. 피고는 원고가 이 사건 부동산을 ◇◇◇의 명의로 취득하였다가 ◈◈◈에게 부담부증여한 것으로 보고, TT세무서장으로 하여금 2012. 00. 00. ◈◈◈에 대하여 증여세 00,000,000원을 부과(이하 이 사건 증여세부과처분)하게 하는 한편, 2013. 00. 00. 원고에 대하여 위 부담부증여에 따라 유상이전된 임대보증금채무에 대한 2012년 귀속 양도소득세 00,000,000원을 부과하는 처분(이하 이 사건 처분)을 하였다.

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an objection with the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office on October 0, 2014. The Plaintiff filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on October 0, 2014, but was dismissed on October 0, 2014.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, Eul 2 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), 3, 7, all pleadings

Purport

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The real estate in this case was actually purchased from UU, with sufficient financial resources. Accordingly, the disposition in this case taken by the real owner of the real estate in this case on the premise that it is not the place of the auction but the Plaintiff is illegal.

B. Relevant legal principles

Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes declares the principle of substantial taxation by stipulating that “if the ownership of income, profit, property, act, or transaction subject to taxation is merely nominal and there is another person to whom such income, profit, property, act, or transaction belongs, the person to whom such income, profit, or transaction belongs shall be liable to pay taxes.” Therefore, if there is another person who substantially controls and manages such income, profit, property, act, transaction, etc. different from the nominal owner, the nominal owner shall not be the person to whom such income, profit, or appearance belongs, but the person who substantially controls and manages the relevant taxable object pursuant to the principle of substantial taxation shall be the person to whom such income, profit, or appearance belongs. In addition, whether such a case falls under such a case shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances such as the details of the use of the nominal owner’s agreement, the degree and scope of the nominal owner’s involvement, the relationship between internal responsibility and calculation, and the location of independent control and disposal authority over the

C. Determination

In full view of the following facts, it is reasonable to view that the real owner of the instant real estate was not the Plaintiff, but the real owner of the instant real estate, taking into account the following facts acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 8 and Eul evidence Nos. 4 through 6. Accordingly, the instant disposition imposing capital gains tax on

① ◇◇◇은 원고의 모친이고, ◈◈◈는 원고의 딸이다. ◇◇◇은 1921년생으로 이 사건 부동산 취득 당시 만 80세의 고령이었고, 0000년 이래 1993년 0,000만 원, 2011년 0만 0,000원의 소득을 신고한 것 외에 신고 소득이 없다.

② The details of real estate transactions in the name of the real estate in the name of the place of residence close prior to and after the acquisition of the real estate in this case: (a) the ownership transfer registration under the name of FF on October 0, 2002 has been completed with respect to subparagraph 302 of the third floor of the ground building 】 (the name of FF on October 0, 2006; (b) Seoul ○○-dong 】 】 】 】 】 】 x 302 on October 0, 2000; and (c) the ownership transfer registration has been completed in the name of the place of residence close on October 0, 201. In the case of subparagraph 302 of the third floor of the ground building 】 the amount of the real estate in this case acquired on October 0, 200 】 the real estate in this case at the time of disposal 】 300-dong 】 30-dong 】 the real estate in this case at the time of disposal.

③ In accordance with an agreement with the Plaintiff, UU created a collateral on the instant real property on October 0, 199 with respect to the creditor, RR Bank, the debtor, the maximum debt amount of KRW 300 million, and the maximum debt amount of KRW 300,000,000,000, which the Plaintiff borrowed as collateral the said collateral, was remitted from the Plaintiff as the purchase price. In addition, there is no objective financial transaction document proving that the address of the real estate in question has paid the purchase price to UU.U.S..

④ 이 사건 부동산이 ◇◇◇ 소유로 등기되어 있는 동안 위 근저당권의 채무자가 변경된 사실은 없고, ◈◈◈ 명의로 소유권이전등기가 마쳐진 이후에도 채무자는 계속 원고로 되어 있다가 2014. 0. 0.에 이르러서야 계약인수를 원인으로 하여 채무자가 ◈◈◈ 앞으로 변경되었다. 한편, 위 근저당권 담보 대출금에 대한 이자는 2013. 0.경까지 원고 또는 원고의 처 QQQ 명의의 계좌에서 이체되었고, ◈◈◈는 ◇◇◇에 대한 세무조사가 완료된 2013. 0.경부터 자신의 계좌에서 위 대출금에 대한 이자를 납부하기 시작하였다.

⑤ On October 0, 2006, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the PP market on the part of the instant real estate at issue. On October 0, 2006, the Defendant: (a) considered the de facto owner as the Plaintiff; (b) rendered a disposition imposing capital gains tax of KRW 00,000,000 on the Plaintiff in the year 2006; and (c) the Plaintiff did not object to the disposition.

⑥ ◈◈◈는 이 사건 부동산이 원고의 소유가 아니라 ◇◇◇의 소유였다고 주장하며 이 사건 증여세부과처분의 취소를 구하는 소송을 제기하였으나 기각되었고(울산지방법원 2014구합1820), 그 항소도 기각되었다(부산고등법원 2015누22394).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.