The contents of the judgment are the same as attachment.

A. Of the Plaintiff’s instant lawsuit, the part of the claim for revocation as to the portion exceeding KRW 318,885,310 among the disposition imposing penalty tax on gift tax on December 2, 2010 shall be dismissed.

B. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

2. 8/10 of the total litigation costs shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

Part).

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the reasoning is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Scope of the deliberation of the political party;

A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking revocation of the instant disposition as Busan District Court 2016Guhap24008. On February 3, 2017, the court of first instance dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim entirely.

B. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with this disposition filed an appeal under Busan High Court Decision 2017Nu20651, and the court of the above appellate court (the appellate court prior to the refund) rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on the following grounds: “The part of the disposition imposing penalty tax on KRW 159,138,500 (including additional tax) of the gift tax on December 2, 2010 among the disposition of this case is legitimate; however, the part of the disposition imposing penalty tax on the gift tax on September 2, 201, which was issued at KRW 159,138,50 (including additional tax) of the gift tax on September 2, 201, which was issued at KRW 159,138,50 (including the penalty tax), was partially accepted among the Plaintiff’s appeal, and rendered a judgment dismissing the disposition imposing penalty tax on the Plaintiff’s remaining appeal.”

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff and the Defendant filed an appeal regarding each part of the above appellate judgment against each party. On December 13, 2018, the Supreme Court reversed the part of the above appellate judgment against the Defendant and dismissed the part of the lawsuit, and rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s remaining appeal. The Supreme Court reversed the part of the disposition imposing additional tax on the gift tax on December 2, 2010 among the part against which the Plaintiff lost, and remanded the case, and dismissed the Plaintiff’s remaining appeal.

D. If so, the scope of the trial of the political party is limited to the imposition of additional tax on the gift tax of December 2, 2010 among the disposition of this case, and thus, it is examined as to this below.

3. Whether the disposition imposing additional tax on the gift tax on December 2, 2010 of the instant case was lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The imposition of gift tax on the transfer of the instant shares by applying Article 45-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11130, Dec. 31, 201; hereinafter the same) which is a provision on deemed donation of title trust property with respect to the transfer of the instant shares. Therefore, it is unreasonable to impose an unfair non-declaration penalty tax on the transfer of the instant shares. As such, the imposition of an unfair non-declaration penalty tax on

B. Determination

(1) Article 47-2(2)1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 11124, Dec. 31, 2011; hereinafter the same) provides that an amount equivalent to 40/100 of the amount calculated by multiplying the calculated tax by the ratio of an amount equivalent to the unreported tax base, out of the tax base, to the amount of the calculated tax, shall be either added to the amount of penalty tax payable, or deducted the amount to be refunded, from the amount of tax payable.

In addition, Article 47-2 (2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes defines the meaning of "unfair method", which is the requirement for an unfair non-declaration penalty tax, as the method prescribed by Presidential Decree, based on the fact that a taxpayer conceals or disguises all or part of the fact that serves as the basis for calculating the tax base or the amount of national tax, and Article 27 (2) 6 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23592, Feb. 2, 2012; hereinafter the same) stipulates "any other fraudulent act to evade, refund or deduct national taxes" as one of the "unfair method".

The legislative purport of the above provisions lies in imposing heavy sanctions on taxpayers who violate the duty to report the tax base or the amount of tax by unlawful means, in cases where it is difficult for the tax authorities to discover any fact that serves as the basis for calculating the tax base or the amount of national tax or where there is any fraudulent act such as creating false facts or forging false facts. Therefore, “Fraud and other unlawful act” referred to in Article 27(2)6 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes refers to a deceptive act which makes the imposition and collection of tax impossible or considerably difficult, and it does not constitute a mere failure to report under the tax law or making a false report without any addition to the circumstances showing the intention of active concealment. Furthermore, even if a taxpayer gets income from the disguised name, it is derived from the purpose of evading tax, and thus, it does not constitute a false contract preparation and payment, false tax return to the tax authorities, false tax return, false registration, false registration, preparation and keeping of accounting books, etc.

D. Examining the following circumstances, which can be seen in light of the overall purport of the pleadings in accordance with the foregoing legal doctrine, the Plaintiff committed an active act resulting from the purpose of tax evasion in relation to the title trust of the shares No. 1 of this case. Therefore, the imposition of an unfair penalty tax on the title trust of the shares No. 1 of this case among the instant disposition is unlawful.

① The CCC formed an appearance identical to that of the purchase and sale of shares in title trust to the Plaintiff, and filed a transfer income tax, etc. with the tax authority based on the share acquisition agreement and account transaction details, etc., which appears to be incidental to the title trust of shares.

② The title trust of shares No. 1 was made for the purpose of tax avoidance, such as interference with the establishment of tax liability in respect of CCC, by bringing about the objective attribution of the property itself through the method in which CCC, the actual owner of the said shares, as the Plaintiff, thereby causing the confusion in title to the said property. As such, the title trust of the instant shares is subject to deemed donation of title trust pursuant to Article 45-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11130, Dec. 31, 201; hereinafter the same shall apply

③ On the other hand, notwithstanding the actual ownership relationship, the Plaintiff, through such title trust, formed the appearance of the Plaintiff holding shares No. 1 of this case under its name, thereby imposing various tax liability, etc. via external means of holding stocks, thereby increasing his/her own tax burden. Therefore, there is a clear difference between the case where CCC, a title truster, obtains income by disguised ownership.

④ In a case where a title trust accompanied by incidental acts, etc. is acknowledged, the Plaintiff, without the substance of the donation, deemed as having been donated property from the actual owner and as a title trustee bears gift tax. As such, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff, based on the title trust, accompanied by incidental acts, etc. for the purpose of evading the gift tax, committed an active act such as the title trust, which is the fact of taxation requirement, and appears to be an excessive sanction against the title trustee when interpreting otherwise. Furthermore, in imposing gift tax with respect to the title trust of shares 1 of this case, the reasonable amount of tax calculated by applying the rate of non-reported additional taxes (20%) on the Plaintiff is as follows.

(Omission of List)

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remainder is without merit.

4. Revocation ex officio by the defendant

However, the Defendant revoked ex officio the penalty tax (91,964,040 won) imposed illegally as seen earlier among the imposition of penalty tax on the gift as of December 2, 2010, which was after the date of the closing of argument in the trial, around May 2019.

Therefore, the part of the penalty tax that the Defendant revoked ex officio as above is no longer a benefit to seek revocation by the lawsuit in this case. Thus, the part of the lawsuit in this case seeking revocation in excess of the reasonable penalty tax amount stated in the above table shall be dismissed as unlawful.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim for revocation exceeding KRW 318,885,310 among the disposition imposing the additional tax on the gift tax on the gift gift on December 2, 2010 among the instant lawsuit shall be dismissed. The Plaintiff’s remainder of the Plaintiff’s claim (the part on the claim for revocation of the additional tax on the legitimate penalty tax on the instant table among the disposition imposing the additional tax on the gift tax on December 2, 2010) shall be dismissed for lack of justifiable grounds. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part on the disposition imposing the additional tax on the gift tax on the gift gift on December 2, 2010 in the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair for a different conclusion. Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the Plaintiff’s appeal