Seocho 2013west 2830 (O6, 2013.09)

Pursuant to the substance over form principle, the person to whom the transfer income of this case belongs shall be the plaintiff.

Since it is reasonable to deem that the instant land was given to the 123 generations at the time of the agreement on compensation for damages, the person to whom the instant capital gains accrued pursuant to the principle of substantial taxation is the Plaintiff.

2013Gudan24665 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

AA

O Head of tax office

August 21, 2014

September 18, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 583,760 for the Plaintiff on November 19, 2012 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. A. Around 1983, OOT Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “OOT”) newly built and sold OE 137 households in O-O-dong, Seoul, and the Plaintiff was the owner of OE OE OE 123 households (including family members; hereinafter “123 households”) including the Plaintiff’s house. The owners of 123 households (including family members; hereinafter “123 households”), including the Plaintiff’s house, prepared a lawsuit for damages and criminal complaint against OE OE in relation to the sale of goods differently from the design of OE, and collected litigation costs related thereto (as for the Plaintiff’s house, OO, the Plaintiff’s wife, bears litigation costs on behalf of the Plaintiff).

B. On October 6, 1984, an OTM entered into an agreement with the above 123 generations to compensate for damages with the content that, in return for the foregoing 123 generations not liable for the civil and criminal responsibility, the OTM owned by the OEM and the ownership of five parcels of land, such as the 11th 4,112 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) in Seoul OEO-dong, Seoul and the total face value of which is KRW 100 million (hereinafter “the instant land”).

C. The 123 households establish a "OBR Management Committee" (hereinafter referred to as the "Committee"), and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Committee on October 26, 1984 with respect to the instant land, etc. by agreement with the OB.

D. On June 1989, the Plaintiff sold the above OBO No.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.

At the time of the sale, the right to the share of the instant land (33/5,744) was not sold.

E. After that, the instant land was expropriated in Seoul, and the Committee received compensation for the instant land from Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant land to Seoul Special Metropolitan City on April 28, 2009.

F. The OOOO No. 2009 Ghana000 against the instant committee

The court filed a lawsuit seeking the payment of the amount of compensation for expropriation (O/OO) corresponding to the share of the land in the case. On June 30, 2010, the court rendered a judgment citing the claim of OOO on June 30, 2010.

Although the Committee appealed against this case, the appellate court (OOOO court 2010 OOOO) rendered a judgment dismissing the appeal on June 9, 2011, which became final and conclusive around that time.

G. The Defendant, on November 19, 2012, decided and notified the Plaintiff of the transfer income tax for the transfer of shares in the instant land (O/O) on November 19, 2012 as the Plaintiff did not report the transfer income tax. (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

H. The Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant disposition with the Defendant and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, by asserting that the instant disposition should be exempt from capital gains tax, since the ownership of the instant land (O/OO) is owned by the above O/OO as the ownership of the instant land (O/OO) is owned by the above O/OO, and the transfer of ownership of the instant land (O/OO) constitutes a transfer of one house owned by one household.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 3, 4, 5 (including provisional number)

Second, the purport of the whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

OO’s burden of litigation costs at the time of filing a lawsuit claiming damages against OOT is that the holder of the right to the instant land shares (O/OO) is an OO in a written confirmation prepared by the president of the instant committee around December 21, 1984. In addition, OO participated in the lawsuit against the instant committee seeking payment of compensation for expropriation equivalent to the instant land shares (O/OO). Comprehensively taking account of all such circumstances, capital gains tax imposed on the Plaintiff is illegal as it is imposed on the place where there is no income.

B. Determination

1) Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that “income, profit, property, and property subject to taxation”;

If the title of act or transaction is only nominal and there is another person to whom it actually belongs, the person to whom it actually belongs shall be liable to pay taxes, and the tax law shall apply.

2) If so, a person to whom the capital gains on the instant land shares (O/O) actually accrue.

I will look at who is one.

According to Gap evidence No. 4, "this case" is a written agreement between OO Products and the Committee of this case.

It can be recognized that the land, etc. is indicated as "... after the registration of ownership transfer has been completed in the name of the occupant," and the land in this case is different from the design drawings by the owners of 123 households of OBD.

not charged with civil or criminal liability in connection with the sale of buildings in units, unlike the advertisement;

The facts received from the delivery of social gathering material are as seen earlier.

In light of the above facts, under the premise that the owner of the instant land (O/OO) is the Plaintiff in filing an objection and a request for trial on the instant disposition, the Plaintiff asserts that the ownership of the instant land (O/OO) constitutes one house owned by one household, and that the ownership of the instant land (O/OO) constitutes one house owned by one household, it is reasonable to deem that the instant land was given to the owner of 123 households at the time of the damage compensation agreement with the OOE. Thus, the owner of the instant land (O/O) was also the owner of the above OEOO, and the person to whom the transfer income on the instant land (O/OO) belongs is also the Plaintiff who is also the owner of the instant land (O/OO). According to each of subparagraphs 1 and 2 of evidence Nos. 4 and 5, it is difficult to OO to view the owner of the instant land as the owner of the instant land (O/O/O/O)’s share in preparation for the instant lawsuit against O/O’s share in preparation for the instant land ownership.

Therefore, the instant disposition based on the premise that the person to whom the transfer income on the instant land shares (O/OO) belongs is the Plaintiff is lawful.

3. Conclusion

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