early 209west3556 ( December 23, 2009)

Whether a debtor can be seen as a security for transfer to secure a repayment of bonds

In light of the fact that no return is filed and filed along with the final return on tax base that meets the requirements for transfer, ownership transfer of land does not constitute a transfer for security under the relevant provisions.

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

Man Doz 300

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff shall bear the litigation costs.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 92,244,870 for the Plaintiff on July 15, 2009 shall be revoked.

쇠지지鹬 u3000

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

A. On October 28, 2002, the Plaintiff acquired 1508-10, 1508-10, 360,000 square meters of land from ○○○○○ City, and owned it, and transferred 530,000,000 won to KimB, and GuCC on September 18, 2008. After which, on November 28, 2008, the Plaintiff asserted that the acquisition value of the instant real estate was 42,000,000 won, and paid 7,511,360 won of capital gains tax for the year 2008.

B. On July 15, 2009, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition to the Plaintiff, deeming that the acquisition value of the instant real estate was 300 million won, and that the instant disposition was corrected by correcting KRW 92,244,870 for the transfer income tax reverted to year 2008.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 9-1, 2, Eul evidence 1-3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is proper; and

A. The plaintiff's principal

(1) The sales contract for the instant real estate is indicated as KRW 480,000 (each contract and intermediate payment KRW 400,000,000,000). However, the above KRW 480,000 includes the construction cost of KRW 55,00,000,000, which installs the instant real estate, and the actual acquisition value is KRW 425,000,000,000,000.

(2) The actual acquisitor of the instant real estate is DD, and the Plaintiff registered the transfer of ownership in its name on October 28, 2002 for the purpose of securing loans lent to DD. Therefore, since the registration under the Plaintiff’s name was made for the purpose of security transfer, the transfer of the instant real estate is not subject to taxation. In other words, the actual acquisitor of the instant real estate is DD.

B. Determination

(1) First of all, we examine the above Note A (1). According to the Gap evidence No. 8, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the acquisition value of the real estate of this case was 300 million won, and that the testimony of the witness - witness - alone is 425 million won by following the above fact of recognition.

(2) Next, we examine the above Claims A. (2). It is insufficient to recognize the fact that the registration under the Plaintiff’s name was made for the purpose of transfer security on October 28, 2002 on the real estate of this case only with the descriptions of Evidence A, Nos. 6 and 7 and the testimony of witness DD on October 28, 202 (the Plaintiff was the transferor of the real estate of this case, and was voluntarily paid capital gains tax in relation to the transfer of the real estate of this case).

(3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit, and the Defendant’s disposition of this case is lawful.

3. Conclusion

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