The amount paid to the title trustee is paid in accordance with the personal relationship, so it cannot be deemed necessary expenses.

The amount paid by the Plaintiff to the title trustee does not appear to be an amount disbursed to the effect that the Plaintiff secured ownership in connection with the acquisition and transfer of the instant land and concluded the dispute, and there is no other evidence as to the amount paid as brokerage commission.

Article 97 of the Income Tax Act, Article 89 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act

2012Gudan10829 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

The United States of America

Head of the tax office;

December 4, 2013

January 8, 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 the capital gains tax of the year 2008 imposed on the Plaintiff on June 1, 201 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

"A. On July 3, 2003, the Plaintiff purchased 1,101.5/1,937 shares (hereinafter referred to as "the instant land") out of 141-1,937 square meters prior to OO-dong 141-1,937 square meters from KimB and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of thisCC, and sold the said land to EOOB on May 23, 2008." (b) On June 1, 2010, the head of Seo-gu District Tax Office imposed an OOOO on thisCC, the nominal owner of the instant land, who is not the owner of the instant land, for whom the report of capital gains tax was not made after the transfer of the instant land, requested the cancellation of the disposition of capital gains tax imposition, and the head of Seo-gu Tax Office revoked the above disposition of imposition.

C. Following the notification of taxation data of capital gains tax, the Defendant: (a) deemed the actual owner of the instant land as the Plaintiff; and (b) confirmed the transfer value of the instant land as the OOOO, acquisition value as the OOOO, and necessary expenses as the OOOO; and (c) rendered a disposition of imposition of the capital gains tax for the year 2008 on June 1, 201 to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”); (b) dismissed the Plaintiff’s objection; (c) the Plaintiff filed a request for examination, but was dismissed on February 6, 2012.

Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 through 6 (including numbers in each letter), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

(1) The instant land served as a de facto owner, such as acquiring gains from transfer by arbitrarily transferring the land after thisCC led to the purchase and sale contract. Even if the Plaintiff had a trust in the name of thisCC, the OOOO shall be deducted from the transfer proceeds to the necessary expenses.

(2) At the time of the acquisition of the instant land, the office fees paid to Park E, and the office fees paid to EF at the time of transfer shall be deducted from the necessary expenses.

B. Determination

(1) We examine the argument as to whether the land in this case is a nominal trust property, and whether it is a nominal owner, and the argument as to the OCO won received by thisCC. In addition, considering Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 3 through 5, and the overall purport of the pleadings in this witnessCC’s testimony, the plaintiff can be sufficiently recognized that the plaintiff obtained the land in this case and borrowed the title of thisCC from the title of thisCC, and thereafter, the plaintiff was allowed to establish a collateral security and obtain a loan for the land in this case, and even at the time of the transfer of the land in this case, the plaintiff was merely involved in thisCC’s involvement in this transaction when the plaintiff actually led the contract and entered into a contract. In addition, the OOOO is not only the role of the trustee in thisCC as well as the relationship with thisCC (this is the difference between the plaintiff and the plaintiff, which had been known for about 30 years prior to the date of divorce, and the plaintiff's testimony that the plaintiff alone had to live alone, and there is no reason to recognize that the plaintiff’s assertion to acquire and transfer the land in this case.

(2) With respect to the Plaintiff’s assertion on the amount of money that the Plaintiff paid to Park E and EF as a brokerage commission, there is no other evidence that the Plaintiff paid OE as a brokerage commission at the time of the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant land, or there is no other evidence that the Plaintiff paid OE as a brokerage commission or that the FF paid OE as a brokerage commission (for example, this witness testimony that only the OF was given as cash or a check, which is a statutory commission, was given as a cash or a check). Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

(3) Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s assertion is difficult to accept due to lack of evidence supporting the Plaintiff’s assertion, and the instant disposition cannot be deemed unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.