Case Number of the previous trial
Cho High-2016-Seoul Government-2155 ( July 26, 2016)
Title
The real owner of the instant real property is not fully able to prosecute the allegations of the Plaintiff and the witness that there were separate owners.
Summary
The witness testified to the effect that he was held in title trust the real estate of this case to the Plaintiff, and received all the transfer proceeds of the real estate of this case from the Plaintiff, and the content of the testimony is very specific and consistent, and the circumstances asserted by the Defendant are insufficient to impeachment the credibility of the witness’s testimony.
Related statutes
Article 14 (Real Taxation)
Cases
2016Gudan27344 ( May 17, 2017)
Plaintiff
westO
Defendant
O Head of tax office
Conclusion of Pleadings
April 12, 2017
Imposition of Judgment
May 17, 2017
Text
1. The imposition of the capital gains tax for the 20O.O.O. on the Plaintiff shall be revoked. The imposition of the capital gains tax for the year 200O,OO, orOO(including additional taxes) shall be revoked.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
Cheong-gu Office
The same shall apply to the order.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff acquired O-O-O-O-E-O-E-O-E-O-O-dong Seoul O-dong (hereinafter “instant real estate”) through a voluntary auction procedure of 20O.O.O.O.O., transferred 20O.O.O.O., and completed the transfer income tax report by using the transfer value as the transfer value of O.O.O.O.O.,O.O.,O.O., andO.
B. However, the Defendant deemed the actual transfer value of the instant real estate as the OO, OO, and OO, and revised and notified the transfer income tax O, OO, and OO(including additional tax) to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal against the instant disposition with the Tax Tribunal on 20O.O.O.O. objection, but the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s appeal on 20O.O.O.O.
[Reasons for Recognition] No dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The plaintiff's assertion
The instant real estate is the real estate that the Plaintiff acquired title trust from OO, and the transfer income of the instant real estate was attributed to O. Therefore, the Plaintiff is not a taxpayer of the transfer income tax due to the transfer of the instant real estate, and thus, the instant disposition was unlawful on a different premise.
B. Determination
1) EOO testified to the effect that “the instant real estate was nominally trusted by the Plaintiff,” and that all the proceeds of the instant real estate were received from the Plaintiff.” According to the overall purport of the statements and arguments set forth in subparagraphs 2 through 4 above, EOO.O.O. bank to which the remitter is the Plaintiff, and O, OO, OO, OO, OOO, or O bank to which the remitter is the Plaintiff, and O, O, O, O, or OO’s total sum of loans to which the borrower is the Plaintiff, O, O, O, or OO, orO’s members were deposited, O, O,O, orO, orO’s members were removed on the same day; ② O, O, O, O, orO’s funds deposited in the Plaintiff’s account under the name of the Plaintiff’s spouse; and ② O, O, O, 200, O, or O’s funds deposited in the Plaintiff’s account under the objective name of the Plaintiff’s deposit.
2) On this ground, the Defendant testified to the effect that this court visited the Plaintiff before acquiring the instant real estate through the voluntary auction procedure. However, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff did not directly participate in the sale process of the instant real estate through the statement of the complaint. This court failed to clearly answer how O loans OOO,OO, orOOO was repaid in this court, and this OO stated that the Plaintiff had failed to perform its business after transferring the instant real estate in this court and had experienced economic difficulties. According to the National Tax Service’s computerized data, OO’s testimony in this court appears to be insufficient to believe that the Plaintiff did not perform its business. Accordingly, it is difficult to view that OO’s testimony was inconsistent with the Plaintiff’s testimony, as long as it can be understood that the Plaintiff did not lead the sale process of the instant real estate, and that 0O’s testimony was still insufficient to acknowledge that O00,000,0000 won was transferred to the transferee, as well as that it did not accept 00O’s testimony or 000,000,000.
3) Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the real estate of this case was the real estate that the Plaintiff acquired the title trust from OO, and that the transfer income of the real estate of this case was reverted to O. Thus, the above assertion by the
C. Sub-committee
Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted for the reasons and it is so decided as per Disposition.