2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 806,141,280 of the gift tax against Plaintiff AA on February 9, 2017 and the imposition of the joint and several tax liability for the gift tax against Plaintiff BB, respectively, shall be revoked.

A. On May 1, 199, Plaintiff BB established DD Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “DD Development”) which operates a building management business on May 1, 199, and held a title trust with the above Plaintiff’s 3,000 shares issued by the said company (hereinafter referred to as “instant 3,00 shares”).

B. On December 10, 2014, CCC entered into a contract with Plaintiff BB on the transfer of the instant shares, which was held in title by Plaintiff BB, to Plaintiff AA at KRW 90,000,000,000. Thereafter, DD development submitted to the Defendant on March 31, 2015, a detailed statement of changes in stocks, etc. that the instant shares were transferred to Plaintiff AB upon filing a corporate tax return for the business year 2014, with the Defendant on March 31, 2015.

C. From December 8, 2015 to December 28, 2015, the director of the EE Tax Office conducted on-site verification, etc. of the instant stock transaction, and conducted an investigation of stock changes from November 17, 2016 to December 16, 2016.

D. Since then, on February 9, 2017, the Defendant notified of the results of the investigation by the head of EE Tax Office, received the instant shares from the Plaintiff BB, the title truster of the said shares, and received the gift tax from the Plaintiff BB, and imposed the gift tax of KRW 806,141,280 on the Plaintiff A (hereinafter referred to as “the gift tax of this case”) (hereinafter referred to as “instant gift tax imposition disposition”), and against Plaintiff BB, the Defendant designated and notified the joint and several tax liability for the said gift tax (hereinafter referred to as “instant joint and several tax liability designation disposition”) (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant dispositions”).

E. The Plaintiffs appealed and filed an objection against each of the instant dispositions with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on May 8, 2017, but received a decision of dismissal on June 29, 2017, and again filed an appeal with the Director of the Tax Tribunal on August 18, 2017, but received a decision of dismissal of request on November 6, 2017.

[Grounds for Recognition: Evidence Nos. 1, 2, and No. 1, 2, and 6]

2. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

A. The CCC, even though it is well aware that the instant shares were owned by Plaintiff BB, conspired with Plaintiff AA and transferred the instant shares to the said Plaintiff. Plaintiff BB was aware of the fact that CCC transferred the instant shares to Plaintiff AA. Therefore, Plaintiff AA cannot be deemed to have received the instant shares from Plaintiff BB, and thus, the instant disposition of gift tax was unlawful.

B. The Plaintiff AA has sufficient economic ability to pay the gift tax of this case, and the gift tax was fully paid in full. Thus, the instant joint and several tax liability designation disposition made against Plaintiff BB by deeming that Plaintiff AA was not capable of paying the gift tax is unlawful.

3. Judgment on the defendant's main defense of safety

A. Summary of the main defense

Since the Defendant paid the gift tax of this case to Plaintiff AA, the Plaintiff’s joint tax payment obligation of Plaintiff BB ceased to exist, the Plaintiff’s claim of Plaintiff BB disputing the instant joint and several tax payment obligation has no interest in filing a lawsuit.

C. Determination

The fact that Plaintiff AA paid the gift tax in this case does not conflict between the parties, and accordingly, it may be deemed that Plaintiff BB’s joint and several tax liabilities were extinguished on the basis of substantive law.However, since Plaintiff AA paid the gift tax in this case imposed on itself, the imposition of the gift tax in this case is not confirmed to be lawful and effective, Plaintiff AA can bring a lawsuit seeking revocation of the imposition of the gift tax in this case despite the payment of the gift tax in this case. Nevertheless, Plaintiff AB still has no legal interest in seeking revocation of the designation of the joint and several taxpayers, and Plaintiff BB prevents the opportunity to seek revocation of the revocation of the designation of the joint and several taxpayers in this case, only because Plaintiff AA paid the gift tax in this case, and Plaintiff BB still has no interest in seeking revocation of the designation of the instant joint and several taxpayers. Therefore, even if Plaintiff AA paid the gift tax in this case, Plaintiff BB still has no legal interest in other joint and several tax liabilities in the future.

4. Whether the disposition imposing the gift tax of this case is unlawful

(a) Facts of recognition;

(1) DB was established by Plaintiff BB and has been actually operated by Plaintiff BB until now since its incorporation. In addition, on May 1, 1999 at the time DD development was established, stockholders were GG, HH, III, JJ, and CCC, but on October 21, 2000, Plaintiff BB owned all 21,000 shares, excluding the shares of this case in the name of CCC 9,000 shares.

(2) On December 10, 2014, the CCC and Plaintiff AA indicated the transfer price of KRW 90,000 in the instant stock transfer contract, but in fact, the said transfer price was not paid. In addition, CCC reported and paid KRW 450,000 as the instant shares were transferred, and the said securities transaction tax was withdrawn from the account in the name of DD Development.

(3) On August 18, 2015, when the head of EE Tax Office demanded the vindication of the contents related to the instant stock transaction, Plaintiff AA and CCC submitted a written vindication that the actual owner was Plaintiff AA, and that the transfer of the instant stocks was an actual shareholder of Plaintiff AA. On September 4, 2015, Plaintiff AA and CCC submitted to the head of EE Tax Office a written vindication that the instant stocks were first owned by Plaintiff AA. DD development also submitted a written confirmation of stock transfer to the head of EE Tax Office on September 1, 2015 that the instant stocks were first owned by Plaintiff AA.

(3) Meanwhile, on May 4, 2016, Plaintiff BB filed a lawsuit against the Daejeon District Court 2016Kadan209341 seeking confirmation that the ownership of the instant shares was held by the Plaintiff. However, CCC and Plaintiff AA did not respond to the Plaintiff’s receipt of the Plaintiff BB’s complaint, and accordingly, Plaintiff BB was rendered a favorable judgment by the said court on August 10, 2016.

(4) After November 17, 2016, when the EE director of the tax office conducts an investigation into changes in stocks, the CC stated that the Plaintiff Company transferred the instant shares of the Plaintiff BB to the Plaintiff AB to resolve the Plaintiff’s marital conflict, and that the Plaintiff AA made a statement different from the previous vindication by stating that the instant shares of the Plaintiff BB were transferred to the Plaintiff BB after the Plaintiff’s death of the Plaintiff BB from the Domination with the Plaintiff BB. (5) On November 30, 2016, Plaintiff BB also made a statement to the head of the EE tax office on the purport that the instant shares were trusted to the CCC at the time of establishment, and that the actual owner was the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff Company transferred the instant shares to the Plaintiff AB on May 2016, and that the establishment and the content of the instant shares was proved to be different from the facts of the Plaintiff’s establishment and the actual owner of the Plaintiff’s shares contributed to the Plaintiff ABA’s operation.

(6) The CCC demanded that the Plaintiff AA transfer the instant shares in this Court, and had the Plaintiff transferred the instant shares to the Plaintiff AA for the purpose of resolving inequality among the Plaintiffs. During this process, the CCC testified that there was no factual fact with the Plaintiff BB.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without a partial dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, 6, Eul evidence 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8; Testimony of CCC

B. Determination

In other words, the following circumstances revealed through the above recognition: ① Plaintiff BB and CCC are the form-based relationship and both Plaintiff BB and Plaintiff AB are marital relations; ② the instant shares were owned by Plaintiff BB; and the relevant shares were transferred to Plaintiff BB; in the process, Plaintiff AA could not find out at all the traces in which Plaintiff BB or CCC paid the price for the shares; ③ CCC was the nominal owner for about five (5) years after title trust of the instant shares from Plaintiff BB, the actual owner; but the CCC, which was only the title trustee, transferred the shares to Plaintiff BB, which was the wife of Plaintiff BB, could not easily obtain in light of the empirical rule, as well as the relationship between Plaintiff BB and Plaintiff AA as to the motive is not appropriate.

(4) At the time of transferring the instant shares, Plaintiff BB owned the entire shares issued by the instant company under the name of CCC, and Plaintiff BB actually owned the entire shares issued by the instant company. Since Plaintiff BB was the actual operator of DD development, it is difficult to see that Plaintiff BB, who was in the above position, was unaware of the situation where 30% of the total shares issued by DB was changed from the account under the name of DB, and Plaintiff BB was released from the securities transaction tax on the transfer of the instant shares, and Plaintiff BB was aware of the fact that Plaintiff BB was actually the actual owner of the instant shares, in light of the fact that Plaintiff BB was the actual owner of the instant shares, Plaintiff BB could ultimately vest in the Plaintiff’s shares received the instant shares from Plaintiff BCC. In light of the fact that Plaintiff BB was the actual owner of the instant shares.

Therefore, there is no error of law as claimed by the plaintiffs in the disposition of gift tax of this case against the plaintiff AA.

5. Whether the joint and several tax liability designation disposition of this case is illegal

Whether an administrative disposition is illegal in an administrative litigation shall be determined based on the statutes and factual state at the time when the administrative disposition was taken (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Du32688, Apr. 26, 2017).

According to the evidence No. 9 of this case, it is recognized that the defendant was a taxpayer at the time of the imposition of the gift tax of this case and the assessment value of the property after deducting the debt amount from the active property value of Plaintiff AA at the time of the imposition of the gift tax of this case was 54,410,400 won, and the fact that the gift tax of this case was 806,141,280 won exceeding the above assessment value of the property is as seen earlier. According to the above findings of recognition, since the gift tax of this case at the time of the imposition of the gift tax of this case exceeds the assessment value of Plaintiff AA at the time of the imposition of the gift tax of this case, it is difficult to view that there was any error that the defendant deemed that it is difficult for the defendant to secure the tax claim because Plaintiff AA was unable to pay the gift tax of this case because Plaintiff A

Therefore, it cannot be said that there is no error as claimed by Plaintiff BB in the disposition of joint and several tax liability in this case.

6. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiffs' claims are without merit, and they are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.