Seoul Administrative Court 2012Gudan16599 ( January 1, 2013)

The truster shall not be liable to pay capital gains tax unless the trustee transfers the title trust property at his discretion without the delegation or approval of the truster, and the capital gains tax is not returned to the

If a trustee transfers a title trust property at will without the delegation or consent of the truster, the transferor is not the truster but the truster is not in the position to actually control, manage, and dispose of the transfer income unless the transfer income is returned to the truster, and thus, it cannot be said that the transferor is the taxpayer of the transfer income tax.

2013Nu28758 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

1. MediationA 2. B. 3. OperationCC

Head of Yongsan Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Gudan16599 decided September 11, 2013

June 10, 2014

June 24, 2014

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The judgment revoking the part of the disposition of imposition of the capital gains tax belonging to the year 2008 by the Defendant against the Plaintiffs on March 13, 2012 that exceeds the OOO won among the disposition of imposition of the capital gains tax belonging to the Plaintiffs.

2. Purport of appeal

In the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant is revoked and the plaintiffs' claim against that part is dismissed (the court of first instance rejected the plaintiffs' primary claim and accepted the conjunctive claim, while the plaintiffs did not appeal but appealed only to the part against which the defendant dismissed the conjunctive claim, so the judgment on the primary claim of the plaintiffs in the judgment of the court of first instance was excluded from the scope of the judgment of this

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reason why this Court can be easily presented is that the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance (limited to the part related to the preliminary claim) is the same as that for the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition of the following judgments, and thus, the same is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the

2. Additional determination

The defendant asserts that among the OOO members of the deceased or the plaintiffs who did not receive a refund from AD, the sum of the OOO members reported and paid by AD in connection with the transfer of the real estate in this case and the OO members who subrogated for the plaintiffs have already been returned to the plaintiffs.

According to Gap evidence No. 3 and Eul evidence No. 6, it is recognized that Eul voluntarily paid OE as part of the transfer income tax of the real estate of this case, it is difficult to view the amount of the above OE loan to be repaid by the plaintiff 2, 10,14, and 15 (including the serial number) and that it is difficult to recognize the amount of the above OE loan to be repaid by the plaintiff 2, 100, 2000, 2000,000,000 won were repaid by the plaintiff 2,000,000 won were repaid by the plaintiff 2,000,000 won were repaid by the plaintiff 1,000 won. However, in light of each of the following circumstances, it is difficult to view that the 2,000,000 won was repaid by the plaintiff 1,000,000 won was repaid by the plaintiff 2,000,000 won.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.