National Tax Service Review and Transfer 2010-0214 (2010.06)

It is recognized that commercial buildings have been acquired and transferred by stealing the name.

It is reasonable to deem that a third party disposes of the registration of ownership transfer of a commercial building by stealing the name of the third party. Therefore, the disposition based on the premise that the third party is the actual owner of

Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2010Gudan2684444 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

XX

Head of Seocho Tax Office

May 23, 2012

June 20, 2012

1. The Defendant’s imposition disposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 on December 12, 2009 against the Plaintiff on December 12, 2009 shall be revoked to the extent that it exceeds KRW 000.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 1/20 shall be borne by the Plaintiff and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposing capital gains tax of KRW 000 for the year 2005 against the Plaintiff on December 12, 2009 shall be revoked.

1. Details of disposition;

A. The registration of ownership transfer was completed on March 25, 2005 due to the sales contract on March 3, 2005, the right to claim ownership transfer registration was completed in the name of the Plaintiff on April 4, 2005, again on April 19, 2005, on April 19, 2005, on which the right to claim ownership transfer registration was completed in the name of JungAA on May 19, 2005, and on May 19, 2005, the ownership transfer registration was completed in May 19, 2005 on May 19, 2005.

B. On July 12, 2005, the Plaintiff transferred 00 m25 m25 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m2 (hereinafter referred to as “occinal forest”) to the Dong-gu, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do and did not

C. On December 18, 2009, the Defendant confirmed the fact of non-declaration of capital gains tax on the key prices and the key prices, and issued the instant disposition to correct and notify the Plaintiff of KRW 000 (00 capital gains tax due to the dispute price + KRW 000 capital gains tax due to the issue of forest land + KRW 000 capital gains tax due to the issue price) for the key prices in the sale contract, the acquisition price on the sale contract, the transfer price on the sale contract, and the acquisition price on the sale contract, and the transfer price on the key forest.

(d) Implementation of the procedure of the previous trial;

- Filing of an objection on March 15, 2010 (Dismissal of an objection on April 14, 2010)

- Requests for review on July 20, 2010 (Dismissal of requests for review on September 6, 2010)

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

【The KimB, which the Plaintiff became aware of in the course of real estate sales, obtained the Plaintiff’s name by stealing and disposing of the issue at issue, and the Plaintiff was not involved in the acquisition and transfer of the key price, and the Plaintiff was not the actual owner of the key price, and the Plaintiff was sold that the Plaintiff temporarily owned in the register but did not have any income in the process, so the instant disposition was unlawful in violation of the substance over form principle (the Plaintiff recognized the non-report transfer on the key forest).”

(b) Fact of recognition;

In February 2005, the Plaintiff requested KimB to sell and purchase the Mazur (hereinafter referred to as "OO") located in the real estate brokerage office at the time of Chungcheongnam-si, which is its owner. However, from KimB, the purchase of the land owned by KimCC (hereinafter referred to as "in-house land") located in the Nam-si, Nam-si, KimB from KimB, the Plaintiff was offered a proposal to purchase KRW 000 on the face of Jeju, and paid KRW 00 on February 28, 2005, and paid KRW 00 on March 29, 2005.

The KimB stated that the plaintiff was sold by O, but on March 18, 2005, when the purchase price was not paid, he prepared a letter of payment stating that "00 won shall be determined as the purchase price for OB and the plaintiff shall be responsible for all documents for OB transfer and at the same time 00 won shall be deposited in substitutes or cash."

However, KimB, without notifying the Plaintiff, purchased three issues in the name of the Plaintiff among the money received from the land purchase fund, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff on March 25, 2005, and the registration of ownership transfer was made on April 3, 2005, and the registration of ownership transfer claim was made on April 3, 2005. On the issue issue, KimB, upon receiving the notification of the imposition of management fees, would immediately be disposed of from the Plaintiff who became aware of the fact that the issues were purchased in the name of the Plaintiff, he would immediately be disposed of after being issued the documents necessary for the registration of ownership transfer such as the certificate of personal seal impression for sale from the Plaintiff on May 19, 2005.

After that, on September 23, 2005, KimB again agreed that the plaintiff shall be responsible for and resolve the management expenses and other all other expenses for the key issues arising in the name of the plaintiff.

On the other hand, KimB was convicted of fraud regarding the payment of KRW 000 as the purchase price for the land in separate areas.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute; Gap evidence Nos. 3, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 6 through 9, 11, and 12; Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 10; Gap's testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to view KimB as disposing of the key issue price by stealing the Plaintiff’s name and completing the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Plaintiff. Since the actual owner of key issue price ought to be viewed as KimB, not the Plaintiff, as KimB, the instant disposition on the key issue price premised on the Plaintiff’s being the owner is unlawful. Therefore, the portion imposing capital gains tax of KRW 000 due to the key issue in the instant disposition should be revoked. On the other hand, the portion imposing capital gains tax of KRW 000 due to the key issue in the instant disposition is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the disposition of this case must be revoked within the limit exceeding 000 won, so the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims of the plaintiff shall be dismissed as they are without merit.