Suwon District Court-2015-Guhap-1842 ( January 10, 2017),

Cho Jae-2015-2855 (Law No. 17, 2015)

Whether the disposition of imposition is unreasonable on the ground that the mother of the key real estate title trust to the Plaintiff

Under the substance over form principle, the person liable to pay the relevant capital gains tax has the burden of proving that the title truster who is the subject of the transfer does not become the taxpayer, but can be subject to the substance over form under the substance over form principle.

Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

2017Nu34195 Revocation of a tax imposition disposition

AA

AA Head of the Tax Office

on October 02, 2017

on October 23, 2017

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 defendant shall revoke the imposition of each disposition of the capital gains tax AAAA and the gift tax AAAAA against the plaintiff on December 15, 2014.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's explanation on this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, it shall refer to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance pursuant to Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

○ On April 10, 2013, No. 5 of the judgment of the first instance court, “Plaintiffs on April 10, 2013,” and “Plaintiffs on April 10, 2013.”

The following is added on the third page of the judgment of the court of first instance. (The plaintiff claimed that the above 32,00,000 won was actually the money of the KimA and the account deposited in the name of the plaintiff was managed by KimA, and thus the above money was not contributed by the plaintiff. However, at the time of the purchase of the real estate in this case, the plaintiff appears to have been engaged in independent economic activities as an adult of the age of 29,000, and even if KimA had engaged in specific management of the above account, the above money was derived from the funds of KimA, and even if KimA had engaged in specific management of the above account, it would be deemed that the money was owned by the plaintiff and the financial transaction result would belong to the plaintiff, and even after the deposit in the account in the name of the plaintiff, it cannot be said that the financial transaction calculation relationship, etc. still belongs to KimA).

○ Part 5 of the first instance court’s decision No. 4, “The possession was” added to the following contents (after this, KimA filed a petition for bankruptcy immunity with the Seoul Central District Court on April 14, 2014).

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.