The delinquent taxpayer is obligated to implement the procedure for changing the name of the owner on the land ledger in recompense for development outlay due to cancellation of title trust.

As a copy of the instant complaint stating a declaration of intent to terminate the title trust agreement in subrogation of a delinquent taxpayer is served on the defendant, the defendant is liable to implement the procedure to change the name of the owner on the land ledger for recompense of development outlay based on the cancellation of title trust unless there are special circumstances

§ 404. Creditor's right of subrogation

2017Gahap25594 Action for demanding the performance of change of title in the registration of land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay

Korea

AA

August 30, 2018

October 11, 2018

1. The defendant has fulfilled the procedure to change the name of owner on the register of land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay as to shares of 1/2 of each one out of the lands allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay listed in the annexed list to BB (*********

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. BB, while substantially operating CCC, DDD, and EEEE, a planning real estate company, was responsible for the secondary taxpayer pursuant to Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes for corporate tax, business income tax, and wage and salary income tax in arrears as stated in the separate sheet from 2013 to 2015. From 2015 to 2017, BB was in arrears with global income tax and comprehensive real estate tax on its recognized portion, wage and salary income, business income, business income, and real estate holding as stated in the separate sheet. BB was dissatisfied with the disposition of imposition of corporate tax and global income tax, and was partially reduced on January 24, 2016 at the competent tax office. However, as of November 24, 2017, BB’s amount of delinquent corporate tax, such as corporate tax, including additional dues, is the total amount of 8,606,143,460 won as stated in the separate sheet.

B. Meanwhile, on September 13, 2013, the Defendant, the BB and his spouse, purchased each parcel of land listed in the separate sheet of land (hereinafter “each of the instant land allotted in recompense for development outlay”) located in the urban development zone within the GGG Urban Development Project from the FFFF Co., Ltd., and around that time, he completed the procedure for changing the name of the owner into BB and the Defendant from the FFF Co., Ltd., one half of each of the shares in the land allotted in recompense for development outlay Urban Development Co., Ltd. on the register of the GGGG Urban Development Association from the FFFF Co., Ltd., and the Plaintiff expressed his intention that the above title trust agreement will be terminated by subrogation of BB on the ground that BB was trusted in trust to the Defendant. The copy of the complaint was delivered to the Defendant on January 2, 2018.

D. The current value of active property owned by BB is merely KRW 980,986,626, as stated in the separate sheet, except for shares in 1/2 of each of the Defendant’s respective shares in the land secured by the recompense for development outlay of this case, and BB is insolvent (it is reasonable to consider that the difference between the property value and the national tax amount exceeds KRW 7.6 billion, even if the property value in the separate sheet is based on the officially assessed individual land price, and the individual land price falls short of the real property value, and it is reasonable to recognize BBB as insolvent).

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Evidence Nos. 8-1 through 13, 9, 10, 13, Evidence Nos. 3-1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Grounds for the plaintiff's claim

Each of the shares in each of the instant land allotted by the Defendant in recompense for development outlay was purchased by BB by lending the name of the Defendant and the actual owner of BB. Accordingly, BB, in insolvent, does not exercise its right to the land allotted by the State in recompense for development outlay. Therefore, BB’s creditor terminates the title trust agreement between BB and the Defendant on behalf of BB, and seeks implementation of the procedure by changing the name of the owner of each of the land allotted by the State in recompense for development outlay to BB.

3. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. As to this, the defendant's book of land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay is prepared and kept for administrative purposes for the convenience of administrative affairs, and the right to real estate is not altered or publicly announced by the entry in the book, and even if there is a entry contrary to the truth in the book, it is not necessary to seek an alteration to the entry in the book, and therefore, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit.

B. We need to give public notice in cases where an executor of an urban development project disposes of land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay to a third party or transfers land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development recompense. The Urban Development Act does not explicitly stipulate this. However, the nature of the right acquired by an executor by the transferee is the practice or practice of an urban development project by receiving a report on the acquisition of land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development recompense for development recompense, and Article 72(2)5 and (3) of the Urban Development Act and Article 85-5 subparag. 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that an executor shall make the sale statement as documents related to the implementation of an urban development project by posting it in the Official Gazette, and shall keep it in the main office located in the area where the urban development project is implemented, and if so requested by the right holder, it shall be deemed that the registration in the register managed by the executor, other than delivery or possession of the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development recompense for development recompense for development recompense for development recompense for development outlay for development outlay for development outlay for development outlay for development.

In the case of this case, the plaintiff can preserve its responsible property by acquiring rights similar to real rights over each of the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay through the lawsuit of this case in subrogation of BB, the debtor, through the lawsuit of this case. Therefore, the defendant's defense prior to the merits is without merit.

4. Judgment on the merits

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

In full view of the overall purport of evidence Nos. 11, 12, 14-1, 2, and 3 as well as the overall purport of the arguments and arguments, BB has been operating the CCC, a planning real estate company, and has actually managed the accounts offered by the Defendant for this purpose. It is sufficient to recognize the facts that only one-half of the loans made by the Defendant out of the name of the Defendant was nominal trust to the Defendant by purchasing each of the development recompense land of this case with the funds for tax evasion, etc. of the above companies. It is insufficient to acknowledge the facts that each of the items of evidence Nos. 4, 5-1, 2, 3, and 6 were nominal trust to the Defendant.

In addition, the fact that the copy of the complaint of this case, on January 2, 2018, stating the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to terminate the above title trust agreement on behalf of BB, was delivered to the Defendant on behalf of BB, is identical to the facts set out in the above basic facts. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to implement the procedure for changing the name of the owner in the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay, which

B. Judgment on the defendant's argument

1) As to this, the Defendant asserts that even if BB held title trust to the Defendant, each of the shares of BB out of the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay, Article 45-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act stipulates that the nominal owner of the title trust property shall be deemed to have been donated to the actual owner, each of the shares of 1/2 above shall be deemed to have been donated by BB

2) In the event that the actual owner and the nominal owner of the property (excluding land and buildings) required to be registered, etc. in the transfer or exercise of the right are different, the value of the property shall be deemed to have been donated from the actual owner on the date when the property is registered, etc. as the nominal owner, notwithstanding Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes. In addition, the above provision explicitly states that the above provision does not apply to the title trust of land and buildings. In addition, the purport of the above provision is merely that the title trust property is deemed to have been donated from the actual owner, and that the title trust agreement shall not be deemed to have been deemed to have been a donation contract for legal relations with the general public in application of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. Accordingly, the above assertion by the prior defendant on

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for changing the name of the owner on the ledger of land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay on January 2, 2018 with respect to 1/2 shares of each of the land allotted by the defendant among the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay on January 2, 2018, and the plaintiff can seek the implementation by subrogation of BB as the creditor of BB. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is accepted as reasonable, and the burden of litigation costs is decided as per Disposition by applying