Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit
Daejeon District Court Gongju Branch 2010Kahap916 ( October 12, 2011)
Title
Tax claims have already occurred at the time of selling real estate, and taxation claims have become effective due to the fact that there was a basic legal relationship at the time of selling real estate.
Summary
Since a tax obligor sold and purchased real estate which is the cause of taxation prior to the end of the taxable period, and the Plaintiff imposed global income tax on the business income from the sale and purchase of the real estate after the end of the taxable period, taxation claims have already occurred at the time of the sale of the real estate, and the tax claims have become effective due to the reality
Cases
2011Na6371 Revocation, etc. of Fraudulent Act
Plaintiff, Appellant
Korea
Defendant, appellant and appellant
SAA et al.
Judgment of the first instance court
Daejeon District Court Decision 2010Gahap916 Decided October 12, 2011
Conclusion of Pleadings
June 28, 2012
Imposition of Judgment
July 24, 2012
Text
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim
Main purport of the claim
1. As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1, and between Defendant A and ParkB, the sales contract entered into on August 20, 2009 shall be revoked within the limit of 00 won, and the Defendant A shall pay to the Plaintiff 00 won and the amount calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from the day following the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive to the day of full payment.
2. On August 20, 2009, each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 list, and between Defendant CCC and ParkB
The conclusion of the sales contract shall be revoked within the scope of 000 won, and the defendantCC shall pay the plaintiff 00 won with the interest of 5% per annum from the day following the day this decision became final and conclusive to the day of complete payment.
Preliminary Claim
1. Defendant Western shall pay to the Plaintiff 00 won and 5% interest per annum with respect to the Plaintiff at the rate of 5% per annum from the day this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.
2. Defendant CCC shall pay to the Plaintiff 00 won and 5% interest per annum with respect to the Plaintiff at the rate of 00 won per annum from the day this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.
Purport of appeal
The judgment of the first instance is revoked. All of the plaintiff's claims against the Defendants are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
The court's explanation on this case is as follows: "I am realized to 4th 17th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th
[Completioned Parts]
However, although each building listed in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the separate sheet 1 was newly constructed, it is difficult to believe that the registered name was entrusted to ParkB and registered under the name of ParkB due to development activities, or that each of the instant sales agreements conform to the argument that the title of each of the instant contracts was based on a title trust agreement between A, Defendant SA, and CCC, the testimony of ParkB by Park Jong-B was made from October 2008 to Park Jae-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam, and the housing construction costs, such as electrical works, water and water materials, and electric installations, and the benefits to thisCCC were disbursed from its account (see evidence A5). In addition, it is difficult to support the above assertion, and there is no other evidence to support that ParkB-B's testimony by Park Jong-B witness was insufficient to obtain the housing site development, and it is difficult to support that Park Jong-B-B was the best financial institution to obtain the housing site development, and that it was difficult to support the Defendants’ respective real estate under the name of each financial institution.
2. Conclusion
Therefore, the part against the defendants in the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the defendants' appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.