1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The registration of preservation of ownership in the name of C, D, and E (hereinafter “C, etc.”) on August 18, 1981 was completed with respect to the cemetery 4,95 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”) located in Kimhae-si, Kim Jong-si. However, on November 5, 2012, the registration of the transfer of all co-owners’ shares in the Plaintiff’s name, which was to be cancelled for the title trust on October 30, 2012, was completed (hereinafter “instant registration of transfer”).

B. On November 7, 2012, the Plaintiff reported and paid acquisition tax on the instant real estate at KRW 6,031,460, special rural development tax, KRW 344,650, and KRW 516,93,090 on the date of acquisition to the Defendant on October 30, 2012, KRW 172,327,50, which is a tax base, and KRW 6,893,090 on the instant real estate.

C. After that, on April 7, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a claim for correction to the Defendant for refund of the total amount of KRW 6,893,090 paid by the Plaintiff, stating that “the instant registration of transfer is not based on the actual transaction, but only the registered name is changed following the termination of title trust.” However, on April 29, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting the said claim against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on May 20, 2014, but the said claim was dismissed on July 21, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 6 evidence, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was the actual owner of the instant real estate under title trust with C, etc., and thereafter, the title trust agreement was terminated between the title trustee C, etc., and the ownership was restored to the Plaintiff’s name by completing the instant transfer registration. It did not newly acquire the ownership of the instant real estate according to the actual transaction.

Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful on a different premise.

(b) relevant legislation;