beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the part of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition of the following judgments, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The addition;
A. The Defendant’s assertion does not coincide with the content claimed in this case as the content of loans of KRW 685 million to the network in the course of the Plaintiff’s appeal against the instant disposition to the Tax Tribunal, and the content alleged in this case is inconsistent. The Defendant’s assertion is that the body of notes related to KRW 485 million (Evidence A3 and 4) and the highest letter (Evidence A6) received in return for the transfer of the G apartment of this case are identical; the Plaintiff continued to live in the same residential area as the network D even after the Plaintiff was divorced; and the content of the written agreement (Evidence A(Evidence 15) written by the Plaintiff in relation to the transfer of the real estate of this case is inconsistent with the content of the written agreement (Evidence A6) written on the same day (Evidence 16) that the Plaintiff claimed by the Plaintiff in relation to the transfer of the real estate of this case is insufficient to believe that the Plaintiff lent the above KRW 485 million to the networkD.
B. The Plaintiff and B, even if they divorced for the purpose of evading capital gains tax, cannot be deemed as null and void, and the division of property accordingly cannot be deemed as null and void. As seen earlier, KRW 485,00,00, which is the transfer price of G apartment of this case acquired by the Plaintiff through division of property, shall be deemed as the Plaintiff’s funds. The above KRW 485,00,00, which was actually transferred to the network D at the time, and thereafter, the loan certificate, which is a disposal document, was prepared between the Plaintiff and the deceased D (the creditor may describe the contents of the loan certificate and the obligor’s name and the obligor’s name and therefore, it shall not be deemed that the highest letter of claim is not the same as the pen of the loan certificate, nor trust it).