Collections

Since the Nonparty did not hold a claim for the purchase price and a claim for the refund of the purchase price against the Defendants, the Plaintiff cannot file the instant claim with the Defendants by subrogation of the Nonparty.

Article 404 of the Civil Act

Suwon District Court Branch 2014Gahap2021278

Korea

EE and 1

April 7, 2016

April 28, 2016

1. Facts of recognition;

The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or there is evidence of Gap 1 through 4, 6 through 10, and Eul 1

Each description of the evidence from 17 to 17 (including any number) and a witness AA, BB

Each testimony may be recognized by taking into account the overall purport of each pleading, and the evidence No. 5 shall be written.

Ro is insufficient to reverse this recognition.

A. Defendant CCC on October 2, 2002 and other buyers around October 2, 2002 to carry out land development projects.

The defendant CCC purchased forest land in 39-4, the CCC in this process.

(E) in order to obtain a land development permit easily, the name of the owner and the spouse of the EE;

In addition to the use, the name of AA, which is the partner of the Defendant CCC ( husband of the network DD, which is the living partner of the Defendant CCC).

The defendant CCC decided to pay acquisition tax and medical insurance premiums to AA around November 2002. The defendant CCC decided to pay acquisition tax and medical insurance premiums to AA around November 2002

to bear all expenses incurred in the registration of title trust, such as commercial portion, capital gains tax, resident tax, etc.

AA made an agreement on January 28, 2003, and around January 28, 2003, paid KRW 2 million to A as the title of the price for title trust.

C. Meanwhile, AA does not call up a seller in the course of selling and buying forest land in mountain 39-4 forest land in mountain.

There is no involvement in the sale, such as that.

B. Defendant CCC’s share 3234/59306 out of 39-4 forest land in Busan CCC on February 6, 2003

The transfer registration was made in the name of AA, and thereafter, the Dog-si in Gwangju City was 39-23,000

on May 23, 2003, the forest land of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "forest land of this case") shall be divided into the forest land of this case 39-4,000 square meters.

AA was divided on May 28, 2003, and on May 28, 2003, before co-owners with respect to the forest land of this case jointly owned through the division.

The transfer registration of the original share was made.

C. As to the shares of 1911/3234 out of the forest land of this case on January 10, 2011, Defendant EE shall be subject to BB

on January 10, 2011, the transfer registration for shares of 1323/3234 out of the forest land in this case has been completed.

AA, a registered titleholder, is a seller for each transfer mentioned above.

A sales contract shall be drawn up.

D. Defendant CCC shall transfer the above shares from BB according to the sales contract concluded with BB.

The purchase price of KRW 100 million was paid.

E. The director of the Dong-ju Tax Office under the plaintiff's jurisdiction shall transfer income tax on each of the above equity transactions to A.

133,580,340 won (the due date for payment January 31, 2012), which includes additional tax as of the date for filing the instant lawsuit;

Although the amount in arrears of capital gains tax is imposed and notified 171,249,910 won, AA has paid it.

In addition, the court below did not err.

(f) On August 12, 2013, the head of the Dong-ju District Tax Office’s sales price claims against Defendant EE by AA.

231,200,000 won and 100,000 won in purchase to Defendant CCC each seize the right to claim the return.

The Defendants demanded collection from the Defendants, but the Defendants did not comply with this.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts as follows as the cause of the claim of this case.

AAA defaulting on capital gains tax of KRW 171,249,910,00 for Defendant EA

There are 231,200,000 won sales claim according to the share sales contract for dry Forest. And AA

Defendant 10 million won pursuant to the share sales contract of the forest of this case concluded by BB

AA was received on behalf of the seller and did not pay it to AA, which is a seller. As such, AA was the defendant.

A claim for refund of KRW 100,000,000 for the above sale price to A. The Plaintiff has a claim for refund of the above sale price.

Accordingly, the aforementioned claim for the purchase price and the claim for the refund of the purchase price were seized and notified to the public.

AA, the payer, may seek performance from the Defendants on behalf of the Defendants on behalf of the Defendants. The allegations by the Defendants on domestic affairs are asserted by the Defendants.

Defendant CCC’s title trust to AA, even if the forest of this case is a real estate held in title by Defendant CCC

§ 4(2) proviso of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name as a contract title trust

Since AA, a title trustee, acquired the ownership of the forest of this case, the Defendants are the Plaintiff.

shall comply with such request.

B. Determination

According to the above facts of recognition, AA is entrusted by Defendant CCC in name.

The registration of transfer of shares in the forest of this case has been made, and the trust relationship is not a contract title trust but a contract title trust.

That is, the actual owner of the transferred land is subject to the disposition of capital gains tax.

Even if only a title trustee is not a title trustee, the tax authority that is only a third party is a special circumstance.

Unless otherwise, the registration of ownership transfer for the land concerned is trusted and subject to taxation accordingly.

Therefore, the capital gains tax is imposed on a person who is merely a title trustee on the registry.

Since the defect of taxation disposition cannot be deemed to be serious and clear, the above taxation disposition cannot be deemed null and void.

No. (see, e., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu13627, Nov. 28, 1997). The Plaintiff’s rank against AA

No transfer income tax imposition disposition shall be null and void. However, the Plaintiff’s taxation claim against AA shall be deemed null and void.

Even if it is recognized, the Plaintiff’s payment claim and sales claim against the Defendants on behalf of the Defendants in lieu of AA.

In order to collect the claim for refund of the purchase price, AAA shall make a sale and purchase claim against the Defendants.

AA must hold the claim to return the price. According to the above facts of recognition, AA shall act on behalf of the Defendants.

The Plaintiff cannot be deemed to hold a claim for the purchase price and a claim for the refund of the purchase price.

No claim against dismissal shall be accepted.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is without merit, and all of them are dismissed. It is so ordered as per Disposition.

this decision is rendered.