Plaintiff (Law Firm Won, Attorneys Kim Gi-hun, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The head of Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

January 22, 2015

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2014Guhap52916 decided July 25, 2014

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The imposition of acquisition tax of KRW 72 million (including additional taxes) on the Plaintiff on January 10, 2014 and the imposition of KRW 3,238,950 (including additional taxes) on the special rural development tax on October 10, 2013 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as follows. Thus, it is accepted by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

○○ The second part of the 11st sentence “Defendant” is regarded as “Nonindicted 1 (Counter-party: Nonparty)”.

Then, the lower court determined that “a sales contract was concluded in the name of DIM No. 13 to 14,” and concluded the registration of ownership transfer in the name of Nonparty 2 on June 23, 2003.”

○ 6. 3 to 4 [Reasons for Recognition] add “A” to the column “each entry in the evidence of heading 27 through 31 (including branch numbers)”.

The following shall be added to the 7th page 9 of the 7th page “it is sufficient to see that the person actually acquired the act.”

[Defendant 1] The Plaintiff and DM Shipping agreed to promote the purchase of the land of this case with the Plaintiff as the buyer (the evidence No. 5 and the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal No. 2, Sept. 19, 2014). Accordingly, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract for the real estate of this case with Nonparty 1 in its name on September 19, 2002 (Evidence No. 6). The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Nonparty 1 claiming the implementation of the ownership transfer registration procedure based on the above sales contract, and was sentenced to a favorable judgment on September 16, 2005 (Evidence No. 1). In full view of the circumstances such as the Plaintiff and Nonparty 1 (Defendant in the above lawsuit) did not assert that both the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff were the title trustee, the Plaintiff can be deemed to have acquired the real estate of this case under the so-called contract title trust agreement between DMD and the Plaintiff.

○ The 8th page 17 of the 8th page "digori" is regarded as "digorith".

2. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is groundless.

Judges fixed-type (Presiding Judge) Gangwon-gu