It is not enough to recognize that there is a significant and apparent defect in the reporting act of global income tax and that it constitutes abrupt invalidation.

Inasmuch as it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the act of filing a global income tax return falls under the invalidation of abrupt, the Plaintiff’s claim based on the premise that the global income tax return is null and void is without merit.

Article 35 of the Framework Act on National Taxes [Priority of National Taxes]

2014 Gohap546402 Demurrer against distribution

00

Korea

August 27, 2015

September 17, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

With respect to a compulsory auction case by official auction against the defendant, the amount of dividends 1,220,854,043 against the defendant in the distribution schedule prepared by the above court on June 27, 2014 shall be deleted from 0 won to 1,220,854,043, and the amount of dividends against the plaintiff shall be corrected from 0 won to 1,220,854,043 won.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Nonparty A with the Seoul Southern District Court 201Kahap18063. On May 1, 2012, “AA” was rendered a favorable judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on May 1, 2012, that “The said amount of KRW 1,09,600,000 out of the said amount of KRW 1,09,600,000 per annum for KRW 36.5% per annum for the said amount of KRW 1,09,600,000 from May 16, 2011 to the date of full payment, 36.5% per annum for the said amount of KRW 150,000,000 per annum for the said amount of KRW 30% per annum for the said amount of KRW 1,249,60,000,000.”

B. On September 3, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for a compulsory auction against the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government **** (Dual: 2013 other ****, 2013 other ****) the auction of this case (hereinafter referred to as the “instant auction”). The Defendant (competent:* tax affairs; hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”) completed the auction of this case on September 26, 2013; * tax affairs; 17 December 17, 2013; 5, 201, 304, 205, 304, 305, 205, 305, 206, 305, 201, 205, 305, 205, 306, 305, 205, 305, 201, 204, 305, 2014, 205, 2016, *610

C. The Plaintiff appeared on the date of the foregoing distribution, and raised an objection to the whole amount of the Defendant’s dividends, and filed the instant lawsuit on July 1, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 to 8 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

For the following reasons, the Plaintiff sought correction of the content that the dividend distributed to the Defendant among the instant dividend table is distributed to the Plaintiff, since the imposition of global income tax or the claim for delivery against AA in 2011, which served as the basis of the Defendant’s distribution to the Defendant, is null and void in the instant dividend table.

A. The Defendant’s imposition of global income tax is obvious that it lacks external shape or is objectively impossible to recognize its establishment or content.

(b)The profits accruing from the new construction and sale of a commercial building promoted by the AG Trust Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "GGG Trust") shall not be attributed to the A at the time of sale, but be attributed to the A only after November 19, 2012, after the termination of a trust agreement entered into between the A and the GG Trust, from the trust property, the remainder of the profits remaining after deducting the beneficiary's beneficial rights and project costs from the first beneficiary's preferential rights and expenses from the GG Trust. Therefore, the imposition of the global income tax in 2011 by the Defendant is null and void because it is subject to the income that has not accrued during the taxable period. The circumstance that some omissions in the income return by the A is not considered to constitute an occasional reason under the Income Tax Act. Moreover, even if the Defendant imposed the global income tax in 2011, it is unreasonable to impose the global income tax on the same income.

D. The Defendant requested issuance of global income tax and global income tax for interim prepayment in 201 and global income tax for 3,469,824,979 from the instant auction even though the Defendant had been paid dividends in the amount of KRW 3,469,824,979, which is already a separate auction procedure, Seoul* District Court 201.

3. Determination

A. In the case of taxes subject to the applicable tax return method, a taxpayer’s tax base and amount of tax are specifically determined by the act of filing a return, and the payment is determined by the performance of specific tax liability established by the return, and the State holds the tax amount paid based on the final tax claim. As such, insofar as a taxpayer’s act of filing a return does not automatically become null and void due to a significant and apparent defect, unjust enrichment cannot be deemed to be established immediately. Here, whether the act of filing a return constitutes abruptive invalidity due to a significant and apparent defect, should be determined reasonably by considering the purpose, meaning, function, and legal remedies for the act of filing a return, which form the basis for the act of filing a report, and by individually identifying and determining specific circumstances that may arise from the act of filing a return (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da15476, Apr. 10,

Meanwhile, in an administrative litigation claiming the invalidity of an administrative disposition as a matter of course and seeking the invalidity thereof, the plaintiff is liable to assert and prove the grounds for invalidity of the administrative disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Du11851, Mar. 23, 2000). The burden of proof as to the grounds for objection to distribution in a lawsuit of demurrer to distribution is in accordance with the principle of allocation of burden of proof in general civil litigation. Therefore, in the event the plaintiff claims that the defendant's claim has not been constituted, the defendant is responsible to prove the facts of the claim, and in the event the plaintiff claims that the claim is invalid as a false declaration or extinguished by repayment, the plaintiff is liable to prove the facts constituting the grounds for disability or extinction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da39617, Jul. 12, 2007). Comprehensively taking account of this, the defendant's global income and disposition constituted the invalidity

B. Determination

1) The Defendant’s grounds for imposing global income tax in 2011

갑 10, 20호증, 을 1 내지 4, 9호증(가지번호 있는 경우 가지번호 포함, 이하 같다)의 각 기재, 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면 ① AAA가 2011. 11. 30. 중간예납기간 (1월 ~ 6월)의 종합소득금액 13,189,333,733원, 중간예납산출세액 4,608,816,806원으로하여 중간예납추계액의 신고를 한 사실, ② AAA가 2012. 6. 19. 종합소득금액 13,232,556,683원, 결정세액 4,614,052,444원, 기납부세액 1,099,027,200원, 납부할 총세액 3,515,025,244원으로 하여 2011년 과세표준확정신고를 한 사실, ③ AAA는 자신이 소유하는 서울 서초구 서초동 *** 토지에 상가건물을 신축하여 분양하는 사업을 시행하기 위하여 2009. 6. 30. GGG신탁과 관리형토지신탁계약(이하 '이 사건 신탁계약'이라 한다)을 체결한 사실, ④ 위 관리형토지신탁계약 제1조 제1항 은 신탁목적에 관하여 "이 신탁의 목적은 위탁자는 별지1 기재의 토지를 수탁자에게 신탁하고, 수탁자는 이를 인수하여 신탁토지 위에 별지2 기재 건물을 건축한 후 토지와 건물을 신탁재산으로 하여 이를 분양(처분)하는 데에 있다."라고 규정한 사실, ⑤ 2011. 4. 22. 당시 위 신탁의 수익권자로는 공동 1순위 우선수익자로 소외 HHH 주식회사, JJJ 주식회사, KKK 주식회사, LLL 주식회사, MMM 주식회사가, 2, 3, 4순위 우선 수익자로 MMM 주식회사가, 수익자로 위탁자인 AAA가 각 설정된 사실, ⑥ AAA는 2011. 1. 1.부터 2011. 12. 31.까지 분양계약체결에 의해 공급가액 16,556,884,455원에 대하여 부가가치세 신고를 한 사실, ⑦ 서울**지방법원 2013가합** 배당이의 사건에서 피고가 피고 패소 취지의 화해권고결정을 받아들인 것은 종합소득세부과의 하자 때문이 아니라 배당요구종기일 이후 송달된 압류통지서 때문인 사실을 인정할 수 있다. 위 인정사실 및 다음과 같은 제반사정, 즉 ① 소득세법 제2조의2 제6항은 "신탁재산에 귀속되는 소득은 그 신탁의 수익자에게 귀속되는 것으로 본다."라고 규정하고 있고, 법인세법제5조 제1항 역시 "신탁재산에 귀속되는 소득은 그 신탁의 이익을 받을 수익자가 그 신탁재산을 가진 것으로 보고 이 법을 적용한다."라고 규정하고 있으며, 소득세법 제4조 제2항은 "제1항에 따른 소득을 구분할 때 제17조 제1항 제5호에 따른 집합투자 기구 외의 신탁의 이익은 신탁법 제2조에 따라 수탁자에게 이전되거나 그 밖에 처분된 재산권에서 발생하는 소득의 내용별로 구분한다."라고 규정하고 있으므로, 우리 소득세법은 집합투자기구 이외의 신탁에 대해서는 신탁소득의 귀속뿐만 아니라 소득의 구분, 소득의 귀속시기 등과 관련하여 소위 신탁도관설을 취하고 있는 것으로 볼 수 있는 점, ② 이 사건 신탁은 AAA 소유의 토지에 상가를 신축한 후 분양함을 목적으로 하는 신탁으로 토지개발신탁에 해당하는바, 이는 자본시장과 금융투자업에 관한 법률상 집합투자기구에 해당하는 투자신탁으로 볼 수 없는 점, ③ 상가건물을 건축 후 분양하여 얻는 수익은 소득세법 제19조의 사업소득에 해당하는바, 상가건물의 임대로 인한 사업소득의 수입시기는 소득세법 시행령 제48조 제11호에 의해 '대금을 청산한 날, 다만 대금을 청산하기 전에 소유권 등의 이전에 관한 등기 또는 등록을 하거나 해당 자산을 사용수익하는 경우에는 그 등기ㆍ등록일 또는 사용수익일'이 되는 점, ④ 이 사건 신탁 제9조 제1항에 의하면 우선수익권은 수익한도금액 범위 내에서 다른 수익자보다 우선하여 신탁재산에서 신탁수익을 교부받을 수 있는 권리에 불과하여 상가건물 신축 및 분양사업으로 얻은 이익은 궁극적으로 AAA에게 귀속되는 점, ⑤ 그렇다면 GG신탁 이 2011년 분양계약 체결을 통하여 얻은 소득은 피고의 2011년도 종합소득세 부과의 근거가 되는 AAA의 사업소득으로 볼 수 있는 점, ⑥ AAA의 부가가치세 신고액은 AAA가 2012. 6. 19. 과세표준확정신고시 조정후총수입금액을 산정함에 있어 전제가 된 부가가치세 과세표준액과 동일한 점 등을 고려하면 AAA가 원고에게 공사대금을 지급하지 못하고 있다거나 다수의 채권자들로부터 많은 채무를 부담하고 있다는 사실만으로 AAA의 2011년도 종합소득세 신고행위에 중대하고 명백한 하자가 있어 당연무효에 해당한다는 사실을 인정하기 부족하고, 달리 이를 인정할 증거가없다. 따라서 원고의 이 부분 주장은 이유 없다.

2) Nature of a disposition of imposition of global income tax (management number 000*) from time to time on July 1, 2013

In full view of the entries and arguments in Eul evidence No. 5, the defendant's taxation disposition of occasional global income tax (or No. 000*), shall be deemed to fall under "revision of the tax base and tax amount under Article 80 (2) of the Income Tax Act" (the defendant imposed KRW 3,581,459,20 on September 3, 2012 based on the final tax base return of the AA in 201, but the said regular global income tax was reduced to KRW 1,659,542,79,790 on October 25, 2012 by revising the total amount of income on July 1, 2013, and additionally imposed KRW 1,756,927,566 on global income tax as a result of re-revision of the total amount of income and tax base on July 1, 2013). Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that the above disposition of taxation did not meet the requirements of Article 82 of the Income Tax Act and did not require further review.

3) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments stated in Gap's evidence Nos. 14, 18, and Eul 6 through 8 in the previous auction procedure, the defendant received dividends of KRW 3,584,434,630 in Seoul* distribution procedure, Seoul** district court 2013da* 2013* the above dividends were corrected to KRW 2,539,824,979 in the case of demurrer to distribution. The defendant received the above dividends on October 17, 2013, and received global income tax of KRW 1,449,008,270 (i.e., internal tax of KRW 1,216,408,70 + Additional dues 232,59,500 + Additional dues 1,1034,530,530, global income tax of KRW 1,530,500, the remaining amount of additional dues for global income tax of KRW 1,530,130,140,30,130

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.