beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The registration of ownership transfer was made on October 1, 2002 under the name of October 1, 2002 with respect to 258 square meters in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, B, 129 square meters in C, 129 square meters in each of the above land and buildings (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant real estate”). On May 7, 2003, the registration of ownership transfer was made on March 16, 2003 in the name of E and F (hereinafter referred to as “E, etc.”) with respect to 1/2 shares in each of the instant real estate.
B. On July 31, 2003, D scheduled the transfer value of the instant real estate at KRW 870 million, and the acquisition value at KRW 820 million, and paid KRW 30,230,000,000 for the transfer income tax for the year 2003. The Defendant notified that the actual transfer value of the instant real estate was KRW 870,00,000,000, not KRW 1.55,000,000, not KRW 1.55,000,000, not KRW 755,000 x 200,000,000, based on the following: (i) the transfer value of the instant real estate was KRW 3,013,7979,200,000 for the transfer income tax for the year 2003, on October 8, 2010.
(hereinafter referred to as the “previous Disposition”). C.
D With objection to the previous disposition of this case, Suwon District Court 201Guhap10776 (Seoul High Court 2012Nu25325) filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax, and on April 4, 2013, from the appellate court of the said lawsuit (Seoul High Court 2012Nu25325) to the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2012Nu25325) rendered a judgment of winning the previous disposition of this case against D on the ground that the former disposition against D was unlawful, since the taxpayer of capital gains tax due to the transfer of the real estate of this case is not D, not D, which is merely a title trustee, but a title truster A (the Plaintiff in this case). After the Defendant revoked the previous disposition of this case ex officio on July 23, 2013, and subsequently filed a final appeal by the Defendant (Supreme Court 2013Du8509).
In this case.