The legitimacy of the assertion that the transfer tax should be imposed on the truster merely on the trustee

Considering the fact that the Plaintiff paid most of the purchase price of an apartment and the Plaintiff transferred the apartment of this case without the truster, it is insufficient to recognize that the instant disposition was made by clearly recognizing the fact that the apartment of this case is merely a title trustee of the apartment of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Article 94 of the Income Tax Act

1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part that the Defendant seeks revocation of the disposition of imposition of KRW 2,985,020 against the Plaintiff on September 1, 2007 shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 29,850,220, resident tax 2,985,020 against the Plaintiff on September 1, 2007 (which appears to be a clerical error in the purport of the claim) is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 20, 2004, the Plaintiff transferred 2, 706, 101, 1301, 1301 (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”) of the name of Seoul ○○-gu, Seoul to Jeju ○○-dong to Jeju ○○-dong, and filed a return after calculating the transfer margin of the apartment of this case as the actual transaction price and calculating it based on the deadline for the final return.

B. On September 1, 2007, the Defendant calculated the transfer margin as the standard market price with respect to the Plaintiff, and determined and notified KRW 29,850,220 for the transfer income tax for the year 2004.

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

2. Whether a lawsuit on the part of KRW 2,985,020 is lawful;

With respect to the part of the lawsuit of this case that the defendant seeks revocation of the disposition of imposition of resident tax against the plaintiff on September 1, 2007, the plaintiff alleged that the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 29,85,020 is unlawful. However, according to Article 177-4 (1), (2) and (5) of the Local Tax Act, the resident tax to be imposed is a local tax to be paid to the head of the Si/Gun (the head of the Gu in the case of the Special Metropolitan City/Metropolitan City/Metropolitan City; hereinafter the same shall apply) having jurisdiction over the place of payment. If the head of the tax office collects income tax by the method of imposition and notification pursuant to the Framework Act on National Taxes or the Income Tax Act, it shall be deemed that the head of the Si/Gun has imposed and notified the income tax together. Thus, the defendant of this case seeking revocation of the disposition of imposition of income tax of this case shall have jurisdiction over the place of payment of income tax on September 1, 207.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that it is unlawful to impose capital gains tax on the title truster who is the title truster and the maximum ○○ who is the gains from the transfer of assets, and impose capital gains tax on the plaintiff who is the title trustee is liable to transfer the apartment in lieu of the maximum ○○○○, in the form of a title trust agreement, after having concluded the sales contract under the name of the plaintiff and allocated the apartment in this case, but the construction company filed an application for provisional attachment and filed an application for provisional attachment registration on October 13, 1997, and the preservation registration was completed in the name of the plaintiff for the registration of provisional attachment on October 13, 1997.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Article 94 of the Income Tax Act

Article 96 of the Income Tax Act

C. Determination

(1) If a title truster transfers real estate to a third party and income from such transfer was attributed to a title truster, the person liable to pay the relevant capital gains tax under the substance over form principle under Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, if the title truster, the subject of the transfer, is not the person liable to pay the relevant capital gains tax (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu6387, Oct. 10, 1997).

Ultimately, the key issue of the instant case is whether the Plaintiff’s transfer of ownership in the name of the Plaintiff on the instant apartment is based on a title trust agreement between the Plaintiff and the largest ○le, namely, whether the Plaintiff had sold the instant apartment despite the fact that ○○le had been actually sold, the title holder under the relevant sales contract was made to the Plaintiff, and whether the registration of ownership preservation was made in

(2) According to Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 22, the plaintiff entered into an apartment sale contract with ○○○ Housing Association on May 18, 1993 (35 square meters, sale price of 174,500,00) with ○○○○○ Housing Association on May 18, 1993, and distributed the apartment on October 13, 1997. The plaintiff transferred the apartment to ○○ Housing on February 25, 2004, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of ○○○○ Housing Association on April 20, 204. On the other hand, the plaintiff's allegation that most of the plaintiff's apartment sale contracts with ○○○○○ apartment's address of 00,000,000 won were the largest address of ○○○ Housing Association on the part of 1,000,000 won, 30,000 won, 10,000 won, respectively.

Therefore, the disposition of this case imposing capital gains tax on the plaintiff registered as the owner in the register of the apartment of this case is legitimate, and the plaintiff's assertion disputing this is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, among the lawsuit of this case, the part that the defendant seeks revocation of the disposition of imposition of KRW 2,985,020 against the plaintiff on September 1, 2007 is unlawful and dismissed. The remaining claims of the plaintiff are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.