The legitimacy of the assertion that a title trust is made for the transferred goods to which the spouse’s monthly taxation applies

The burden of proof for title trust exists on the taxpayer, but the title trust cannot be recognized on the sole basis of all the circumstances without any separate evidence.

Article 98 of the Income Tax Act: Time of Transfer or Acquisition

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant on December 6, 2004 (the plaintiff stated in the warden that the defendant imposed capital gains tax on December 31, 2004, which seems to be a clerical error in December 6, 2004) against the plaintiff, the imposition of capital gains tax of 37,957,680 won for the year 200 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 20, 1998, the Plaintiff’s husband ○○○○, ○○○○, 2076, 2077, 1,464 square meters of a orchard, 2077, and 2078, 5,607 square meters of a orchard, and 207, 2078, hereinafter “three lots of land”) transferred the ownership transfer registration on the ground of a gift made by June 18, 1998, to △○, ○○, ○○○, ○○, ○○○, ○○, ○50 square meters of a orchard, the Plaintiff transferred the ownership transfer registration on January 8, 200.

B. The Defendant calculated the acquisition value based on the acquisition date of ownership of the instant land by ○○○○, by applying Article 97(4) of the Income Tax Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff transferred the instant land within five years from the time of donation by ○○○, a spouse, to the Plaintiff, based on the acquisition date of ownership of the instant land ( January 1, 1985). Based on this, calculated gains on transfer. On December 6, 2004, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing capital gains tax of KRW 37,957,680 for the transfer of the instant land (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 6 (including each number), Eul evidence 1-2 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

○○○ established a right to collateral security on the instant land in order to secure an obligation to ○○○, Inc. (hereinafter “non-party company”), which is an infant, to which he had set up a right to collateral security on the instant land. However, as ○○○○ was unable to repay the debt, the Plaintiff filed an application for voluntary auction on the instant land. At that time, ○○○○○ had the Plaintiff conduct auction on the instant land under one’s name as the principal of the school at the time, and had the Plaintiff conduct an auction on the instant land, thereby having the Plaintiff conduct an auction-related business. As such, the actual transferor of the instant land is ○○○, and therefore, the actual transferor of the instant land falls under the requirements for exemption from capital gains tax under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act on the basis of ○○○, which is the actual transferor, and thus, constitutes the requirements for exemption from capital gains tax under the principle of substantial taxation, and thus, the instant disposition should be revoked.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

If the Plaintiff’s actual owner at the time of transferring the instant land, and if the Plaintiff is only the title trustee, the instant disposition against the Plaintiff under the substance over form principle is unlawful. However, the Plaintiff, the taxpayer, bears the burden of proving the title trust of the instant land. In light of the overall purport of the pleadings in the witness’s testimony, ○○○ established a collateral security right on the instant land to the sub-party for the grant of the exclusive trust around 1994; ○○○ was notified by the non-party company of scheduled execution of auction on the instant land due to nonperformance of the foregoing obligation against the non-party 1, and the non-party 2, 4 (including the paper numbers), 7, and the witness’s testimony, and the entire purport of the pleading in the witness’s testimony, it was found that the non-party 1 received a successful bid of each of the instant land on June 20, 1998, and thus, the Plaintiff did not have any other evidence to acknowledge the bid of each of the instant land on September 15, 1998.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit and it is so decided as per Disposition.