If Party A and Party B purchase a specific site and completed registration for convenience sharing, and they newly construct and transfer each building, the effect of taxation imposed on the capital gains.

If Gap and Eul specified a part of the site and purchased it, and only the ownership transfer registration was made in the name of co-ownership for convenience, and transferred it to others respectively, the ownership of each specific part of the purchase shall be acquired in the internal relationship between Gap and Eul, and each registration of co-ownership shall be considered as a mutual title trust with respect to each specific part of the purchase made by Gap. Thus, as for the specific part of the purchase made by Eul, it is nothing more than the title trustee on the registry, and as for the person who acquired capital gains by transferring it to another person is the actual owner, the taxation by the tax authority imposing capital gains tax, etc. on Gap, which is only the title trustee on the registry, is unlawful in violation

Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 262 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

The Director of the Korean Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 86Gu1330 decided May 4, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the non-party 1 purchased the above portion of the land on September 10, 1983 and the non-party 1 purchased the ownership transfer on the non-party 5's own land on the non-party 1's own land on the non-party 1's own land, and the non-party 2 purchased the land on the non-party 1's own land on the non-party 5's own land on the non-party 1's own land on the non-party 9.174/254.4's share on the non-party 1's own land and the non-party 1's share on the non-party 4's own land on the non-party 1's own land on the non-party 5's own land on the non-party 1's own land on the non-party 5's own land on the non-party 1's own land on the non-party 1's own land on the non-party 25's own land.

In light of the records, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence or by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the principle of substantial taxation.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Lee-hee (Presiding Justice)