It shall be returned to the ownership upon the judgment of invalidity of the cause, and even if the registration has been cancelled;

Although the donor asserts that the transfer of real estate acquired without authority is null and void by transferring it without authority, considering that the Plaintiff directly delivered a certificate of seal impression for real estate sale to the donor, the transfer constitutes a transfer even if the registration was cancelled upon the judgment null and void of the cause.

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant's refusal to request the correction of capital gains tax against the plaintiff on November 16, 2007 shall be revoked.

1. Circumstances of dispositions;

The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings in each statement of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence No. 2-1, 2, and Eul evidence No. 4:

A. On October 25, 2005, the Plaintiff: (a) donated ○○○○-dong 523-○ multi-household 101 (hereinafter “instant real estate”); (b) transferred Do Governor’s multi-household 101 to Do Governor on December 26, 2006; and (c) the Plaintiff voluntarily reported and paid KRW 16,459,710,000, the transfer value of 215,000,000, the acquisition value of 91,928,681, which was calculated as KRW 16,459,710, the transfer income tax, which was calculated as KRW 215,00,00,000, and was

B. The Defendant issued a revised notice on May 1, 2007 that the Plaintiff should additionally pay the capital gains tax of KRW 53,991,510 on the transfer of the instant real estate, while the Plaintiff did not transfer the instant real estate to Do○ type to Do○. Thus, the Plaintiff should not additionally pay the capital gains tax of KRW 53,91,510 on the transfer of the instant real estate.

C. Since August 31, 2007, the Plaintiff received a final and conclusive judgment on the ground that the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of Do○ type with respect to the instant real estate was null and void, and filed for correction on August 3, 2007, on the ground that the registration was cancelled on August 3, 2007. However, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s request for correction on the ground that, considering the Plaintiff’s age, etc. on November 16, 2007, it is difficult to deem that the Lee Ho-hun, who was not authorized to dispose of the instant real estate exclusively

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff sold the real estate of this case to Do Governor without being delegated with any authority concerning the sale of real estate, among the persons who owned the real estate from his father Lee Ho-hun, and the plaintiff thereafter filed a lawsuit to cancel the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of invalidity of the cause, and cancelled the registration of ownership transfer in the name of Do Governor by obtaining a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the plaintiff. Thus, although the transfer income tax imposed on the plaintiff on the ground that he transferred the real estate of this case to Do Governor, the defendant did not have any reason to pay the transfer income tax imposed on the ground that he transferred the real estate of this case, the disposition of this case which rejected the above request for correction of transfer income

B. Determination

In full view of the purport of the pleadings as to Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3, Gap evidence Nos. 5-1 through 3, Gap evidence Nos. 6 and 7, Eul evidence Nos. 9-1 and 2, and testimony of Lee Ho-hun (excluding the portion not trusted in the rear) in the name of the plaintiff, this contract was concluded between Lee Ho-hun and Do Governor on Dec. 13, 2006 to sell the real estate in the name of the plaintiff for KRW 215,00,000, and the remaining purchase price of the real estate was received on Dec. 26, 2006, the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of Do Governor on Apr. 16, 2007 in the name of Do Governor No. 2007Da31468, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the registration of ownership transfer of the real estate in the name of the witness No. 307, which was sold in the name of the plaintiff.

즉 갑 제12호증의 1 내지 3, 을 제3호증의 1의 기재, 증인 이○훈의 증언(위에서 믿지 않는 부분 제외)에 의하면, 원고는 1976.1.21. 생으로서 이 사건 부동산을 도○종에게 매도할 무렵 만 30세 정도로서 학원 강사로 근무하면서 아버지 이○훈과 동거하고 있었던 사실, 원고는 위 매매 무렵인 2006.12.18. 12:41경 이○훈과 함께 동사무소를 방문하여 자신이 신청인이 되어 도○종을 매수인으로 한 부동산매매용 인감증명서를 발급받아 이○훈에게 넘겨 준 사실을 인정할 수 있는바, 위 인정사실과 같이 만 30세로서 학원강사로 근무할 정도의 경험과 학식을 가진 원고가 그 스스로 부동산 매매용 인감증명서를 발급받아 동거하고 있던 아버지 이○훈에게 넘겨 주었다면, 원고는 이 사건 부동산을 도○종에게 매매하는 권한을 위임하는 취지로서 인감증명서를 이○훈에ㅔ 준 것이거나 평소 증여받은 이 사건 부동산에 대한 관리· 처분권을 이○훈에게 포괄적으로 위임하였기 때문에 위 인감증명서의 용도를 구체적으로 확인하지 아니하고 이○훈에게 넘겨 준 것으로 봄이 상당하여, 어느 경우라도 원고는 이○훈에게 이 사건 부동산의 매도 권한을 수여한 것으로 보인다.

As such, inasmuch as Lee Ho-hun was delegated with the authority to sell the instant real estate by the Plaintiff, who is the owner, sold the instant real estate to Do ○○, and completed the registration of ownership transfer, the registration was invalidated after the imposition of capital gains tax on the said transfer due to the personal circumstances of the Plaintiff or Do Do ○○, and the registration was cancelled by a final judgment, such act is merely an act of returning the ownership of the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, which goes beyond its validity, and thus cannot affect the imposition of capital gains tax on the ground of the existing transfer act. Accordingly, the instant disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s request for the correction of capital gains tax

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the revocation of legitimate disposition of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.