Whether the transfer of a parcel of land constitutes the transfer of land, which is an ambassador of the disposition of imposition of real estate speculation suppression tax, after the transfer of registration to secure an obligation.

In light of the provisions of Article 1 and Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Act on Special Measures for the Suppression of Real Estate Speculation, transfer of registration in the name of the Plaintiff on the real estate owned by Nonparty A cannot be deemed to be merely an act of trust for the purpose of securing claims and a substantial acquisition of real estate, and even if cancelling the trust relationship and returning the registration name to Nonparty A, the original owner, according to the repayment of the debt of Nonparty A, the debtor, would again return the registration name to Nonparty A, the transfer of land under the Act on Special Measures for the Suppression of Real Estate

Articles 1 and 2 of the Act on Special Measures for the Suppression of Real Estate Speculation

Plaintiff

Head of Mapo Tax Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 663,547 against the Plaintiff on November 15, 1971 is revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The plaintiff is justified in the judgment as ordered by the court.

The fact that the Defendant imposed on the Plaintiff the real estate speculation suppression scheme in the disposition is not a dispute between the parties.

The defendant, as the ground for this taxation, carried out the above real estate under the name of the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 as the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 as the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 as the non-party 1 and the non-party 3 as the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 as the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 as the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 as the non-party 1 and the non-party 3 as the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 as the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 as the non-party 1 and the non-party 4 as the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 as the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 as the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 as the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 as the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 as the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 as the collateral security interest.

However, according to Articles 1 and 2 subparag. 2 of the Act on Special Measures for the Suppression of Real Estate Investment, the purpose of this Act is to restrain speculative real estate investment by imposing taxes on gains from the transfer of land, and the transfer of land means that the ownership of the land is actually transferred at a price due to sale, exchange, etc., notwithstanding the registration of the land. Therefore, when the ownership of the land is actually transferred at a price in spite of the registration of the land, the gains from the transfer of the land is subject to the speculative suppression tax if the ownership of the land is actually transferred at a price. Thus, the transfer of registration in the name of the plaintiff et al. with respect to the above real estate owned by the non-party 2, such as the above fact-finding, is nothing more than the act of trust aimed at securing the claim, and it cannot be said that there was a real real estate acquisition, and even if the trust relationship was cancelled following the repayment of the debt by the debtor non-party 2, the debtor, and even if the registration title was returned to the non-party

Therefore, under the premise that the plaintiff transferred the above real estate subject to taxation to the non-party 2, the plaintiff's claim for the cancellation of the disposition is justified, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff at the expense of the losing party. The plaintiff's claim for the cancellation of the disposition is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Tae-tae (Presiding Judge)