2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of gift tax OOO on October 6, 2010 against the Plaintiff is revoked.

"A." The director of the Central Regional Tax Office of China issued a prior notice to the Plaintiff on June 24, 2010 on 940,000 shares issued by BB (CCC) a corporation listed on KOSDAQ on May 18, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "the shares of this case") (the shares of this case, which were acquired from ED and 1 other than ED, was held in title trust by the Plaintiff, because E had a title trust with the Plaintiff, the shares of this case were subject to taxation of the gift tax," and (b) on July 26, 2010, the Plaintiff requested a pre-assessment review with the director of the Central Tax Office of the Central Tax Office of Korea on July 26, 2010, but was not adopted on September 10. 2010.

C. On October 6, 2010, the Defendant notified the director of the Central Tax Office of the results of the tax investigation as to the above paragraph (a) and decided and notified that the Plaintiff shall pay OOO of the gift tax on the gift (hereinafter “instant disposition”). D. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with this and filed a request with the Tax Tribunal on January 11, 201, but was dismissed on August 20, 2012.

Facts that there is no dispute over the basis of recognition, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The actual owner of the shares of this case was not able to acquire the shares of this case in his name due to the escape of the EE or the detention of the EE, etc. due to the related criminal cases, etc., the shares of this case were merely nominal trust and did not have the purpose of tax avoidance. Thus, the defendant's disposition of this case should be revoked illegally.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

(1) The legislative intent of Article 45-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11130, Dec. 31, 201) is to recognize an exception to the principle of substantial taxation to the purport that effectively prevent tax avoidance by using the title trust system and realize tax justice. Thus, the proviso of the same Article can be applied only when the purpose of title trust is not included in the purpose of tax avoidance. In this case, it can be attested by means of proving that there was a purpose other than the purpose of tax avoidance. However, the nominal owner of the burden of proof bears the burden of proof that there was an obvious purpose of tax avoidance to the extent that it is recognized that there was no purpose of tax avoidance in the title trust, and that there was no tax avoidance at the time of the title trust, and that there was no tax avoidance at the time of the title trust should be proved to the extent that there was no doubt if it was ordinary, by objective and supporting evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Du11206).

(2) In light of the above legal principles, E purchased the shares of this case from D, etc. on March 3, 2006, and paid the down payment per contract date, intermediate payment on May 28, 2006, and the remaining amount on May 18, 2006, as it was delivered on May 2006, 200. 8. 8. 8. 12. 8. 12. 12. 2006. 2. 3. 1. 8. 2. 1. 1. 2. 2. 3. 2. 1. 1. 2. 1. 2. 1. 3. 20 years after the final judgment of the Seoul High Court on May 12, 2006. 3. 20 years 1. 3. 20 years 1. 20 years 2. 3. 20 years 20 years 2. 206 . 3. 25 3. 25 2. 3. 3. 2. 2. 2. . . . 2. 3

However, the following circumstances are revealed by comprehensively taking account of each statement in the evidence No. 2-1 and No. 3 of the above facts and the statement in the evidence No. 2-1 and No. 3, that is, the date of the sales contract of the shares of this case, namely, before EE was assigned to a designated number on March 3, 2006, and even after the designated number of shares was transferred, it is difficult to deem that E has any obstacle to acquiring the shares; the (B) E is actively involved in the sales process of the shares of this case after the designated number of shares was transferred; (3) it appears that E was engaged in active activities, such as actual management of BB after the acquisition of the shares; (4) it is insufficient to view that EE was escape or detained due to related criminal cases, and there is no other obvious purpose different from the tax avoidance; and (4) it is not sufficient to acknowledge that E is not subject to the tax evasion of the shares of this case as of October 6, 2010.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

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.