Since the name was stolen, the imposition of capital gains tax is legitimate.

In light of the fact that the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage was completed on the date when the ownership transfer registration was made to the debtor, the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage cannot be conducted without the cooperation of the nominal owner on the register, etc., it cannot be recognized that the name was stolen. Therefore, the imposition of capital gains tax is legitimate.

Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2012Guhap1786 Nullification of a taxation disposition

private XX

Head of North Busan District Tax Office

July 27, 2012

August 24, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On July 3, 2009, the defendant confirmed that the imposition of capital gains tax (including additional tax) against the plaintiff on July 3, 2009 is null and void.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Seoul Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 34 apartment A Dong 301 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant real estate”) owned newB. The registration of ownership transfer in the Plaintiff’s name was completed on November 10, 2004 with the Seoul East Eastern District Court No. 9648 received on February 7, 2005 and the Songdong District Court No. 9648 received on November 7, 2005.

B. The voluntary auction procedure was commenced on September 28, 2005 with respect to the instant real estate. At the above auction procedure, KimA awarded the instant real estate on May 25, 2006 and completed the registration of ownership transfer by the Songdong District Court No. 42342 on May 25, 2006.

C. On July 3, 2009, the Defendant rendered a disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 (additional tax of KRW 000) on the transfer of the instant real estate to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although the registration of ownership transfer has been made with respect to the real estate in this case under the name of the plaintiff, it is not the owner of the real estate in this case because the name of the plaintiff was stolen, and the disposition in this case is unlawful, and its defect is serious and obvious.

B. Determination

On the other hand, in an administrative litigation claiming the invalidity of an administrative disposition and seeking the invalidity of such administrative disposition, the plaintiff is liable to assert and prove the reason why the administrative disposition is null and void (see Supreme Court Decision 99Du11851, Mar. 23, 200); there is no evidence to acknowledge that the name of the plaintiff was stolen; rather, the above evidence and evidence Nos. 2, and evidence No. 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings are considered as a whole as follows; i) the plaintiff made a move-in report of the real estate in this case on February 7, 2005, on which the ownership transfer registration under the name of the plaintiff was made as mentioned above, on the ground that the plaintiff's resident registration was made ex officio on Oct. 7, 2005 and re-registered on Oct. 24, 2005; and ii) the plaintiff's transfer registration cannot be seen as being made in relation to the establishment of the ownership of the real estate in this case as the plaintiff's name without cooperation.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.