1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s transfer income tax on December 3, 2013 reverted to the Plaintiff on December 3, 2015, 54,017.

1. The reasoning of the disposition and the reasons why the court should explain this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where “additional tax” is deemed as “additional tax”. Thus, this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination

A. Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes explicitly states the principle of substantial taxation. As such, there is a burden of proof against the claimant that there is only nominal ownership of income and there is a person who actually obtains such income (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Nu505, Dec. 11, 1984). Since a person who is registered as an owner of real estate is presumed to have acquired ownership through due process and cause, the fact that the registration is based on the title trust has the burden of proof against the claimant.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da90883 Decided April 24, 2008). B.

In light of the following circumstances, each statement of Nos. 3-1 and 5, which corresponds to the Plaintiff’s fact that the Plaintiff is the actual owner of the instant land, is difficult to believe, and the statement of Nos. 4-1 and 7, which seem to correspond thereto, is insufficient to recognize it only by the statement of No. 4-1 and 4-7, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the instant disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff is the actual owner

1) Since B was registered as the owner of the instant land, it is presumed that B acquired the ownership by legitimate procedures and causes. B (2) from 1997 to 2007, the land purchased over 77 occasions by changing the land category of the land purchased thereafter into the land for a factory, thereby selling the land purchased over 35 times by newly constructing, selling, dividing, or transferring a factory building. Accordingly, the head of Seodaemun Tax Office deemed that B conducted real estate sales business and deemed that B sold the land as business income on the income accrued from selling the land.