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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of the gift tax on November 1, 2013 by the Plaintiff EA and the notification of the designation of the joint and several taxpayers of the gift tax on the Plaintiff EA shall be revoked.

A. The relationship between the plaintiffs

"1) The largestCC (O.O.O.O.) held O.O. (hereinafter referred to as the “instant shares”) shares of DD Integrated Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “instant company”); and 2) Plaintiff LB is the representative director of the instant company, who is the largest CC, and Plaintiff E.A. was retired from the inside director of the instant company on November 25, 2009 at the expiration of the term of office, but was reappointed on March 31, 2010.

3) The largestCC died on February 10, 2010. The heir of the largestCC was the wife, E, Maximum FF, MaximumG, H and Maximum II, in addition to Plaintiff LB.

B. The process of changing the shares of this case

“1) As to the instant shares, under the name of the largestCC and the Plaintiff Company, the Plaintiff Company entered into a share transfer certificate (hereinafter “instant transfer certificate”) on January 8, 2010, stating that the largestCC will transfer the instant shares to the Plaintiff Company in the amount of transfer per share and the total amount of transfer value to the Plaintiff Company, and (2) the Plaintiff Company Company’s registry was registered as a shareholder on January 8, 2010.

3) After the death of the largestCC, Plaintiff LB reported the transfer income tax on the transfer of the instant shares to Plaintiff UA as above.

C. Grounds for the initial taxation

1) The director of the Kim Sea Tax Office concluded that, even if the Plaintiff LB died, and subsequently the instant shares were trusted in title to Plaintiff LA, the maximumCC was deemed to have donated the instant shares to Plaintiff LA for the purpose of evading inheritance tax liability on the instant shares.

(2) Accordingly, the head of △△△ Tax Office, on January 5, 2012, applied Article 45-2 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11130, Dec. 31, 2011; hereinafter “the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”) to the deemed donation of title trust property, calculated the taxable value and tax base of the instant shares as an OOOO of the instant shares. On the same day, the head of △△△△ Tax Office notified Plaintiff JeongA of the determination of the OOO of the gift tax to the trustee of title, and notified Plaintiff JungB of the payment of the said gift tax when designating Plaintiff B as a joint and several taxpayer for the said gift tax. (iii) On March 19, 2012, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service filed a request for review against this, and the Commissioner of the National Tax Service re-examineed on May 25, 2012 to the effect that the instant title truster and the title trustee held the shares.

D. Assessment after a decision of reinvestigation

1) As a result of re-audit, the head of △△△ Tax Office determined that Plaintiff 1, the heir of the largestCC, and five other (EE, MaximumF, MaximumG, H, H, and most II; hereinafter the same shall apply) title trust the instant shares to Company.

2) Accordingly, on August 1, 2012, the Defendant calculated the amount of the gift tax as follows, reduced the amount of the tax payable to Plaintiff EA to KRW OO, and notified Plaintiff EA of the payment of the gift tax by designating Plaintiff LB and five other persons jointly and severally liable for tax payment ( Plaintiff LB paid the amount of the gift tax reduced as follows on August 3, 2012. The difference between Plaintiff LB and the remaining children is due to the difference between the time of notice and the point of time of payment).

Testamentary donee

donor

MaximumCC-related

Inheritances

Inheritance Tax Amount

Amount of gift tax

(Joint Tax Payment)

Jinay

(Reduction)

Children

2/13

OOOE

OOOE

Reduction

E

wife

3/13

OOOE

OOOE

MaximumF

Children

2/13

OOOE

OOOE

LGG

Children

2/13

OOOE

OOOE

LH

Children

2/13

OOOE

OOOE

LII

Children

2/13

OOOE

OOOE

Sub-committees

OOOE

OOOE

E. Disposition of taxation after ex officio revocation

1) Of the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiffs asserted that, as Plaintiff 1 as Plaintiff BB, a donor of the instant shares was the Plaintiff, the tax disposition and donor as of January 5, 2012, the Plaintiff LBB et al. were deemed to be the Plaintiff 5, and the Plaintiff 1, August 2012, 2012, the Plaintiffs asserted that the imposition of tax was different from the basic fact of taxation,

2) Accordingly, on September 9, 2013, the head of △△△ Tax Office revoked the imposition of OOO on the Plaintiff’s gift tax based on the Plaintiff’s mostB’s share of inheritance and the notification of the designation of joint and several tax payers ex officio and refunded all the amount of tax payable.

"3) After that, the defendant having jurisdiction over the domicile of the plaintiff JeongA, the donee, following a prior notice of taxation on September 11, 2013, determined and notified OOO of the gift tax based on the plaintiff ChoiB's share of the shares in this case (hereinafter "the instant disposition of taxation"), and notified the plaintiff ChoiB to pay the gift tax when designating the plaintiff ChoiB as a joint and several taxpayer of the gift tax in this case (hereinafter "the instant disposition of designation"; hereinafter "the disposition of each of the above dispositions in this case"). The fact that there is no dispute [the grounds for recognition], Gap evidence 1 through 6, Gap evidence 10, and 11 (including serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 through 4, Eul evidence 9, 10, 10, and 15 through 20 each of the arguments as a whole.

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

(a) Defendant Director;

Where the Defendant applied the provision on the constructive gift under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act to the Plaintiff Jeong who is the donee, the taxation disposition in this case is effective only to the Plaintiff Jeong, which is the donee. Even if the Plaintiff who is the donor, falls under the donor, the donor is in fact having an indirect interest in the disposition in this case, and thus, the Plaintiff most BB lawsuit is unlawful because there is no direct and specific interest in law.

B. Determination

The Plaintiff LB sought, through the instant lawsuit, the revocation of the instant designation disposition against the Plaintiff Jeong-A, the original taxpayer, rather than seeking the revocation of the instant disposition against the Plaintiff Jeong-A, who was jointly and severally liable for the said gift tax.

Furthermore, as seen earlier, since the Defendant was jointly and severally liable for the payment of gift tax to Plaintiff LB, it is reasonable to view Plaintiff LB as having a direct and specific interest in dispute over the instant designated disposition.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

1) Before the death of the largestCC, the 00J, a director of the instant company, arbitrarily prepared the instant transfer certificate by stealing the Plaintiff’s name and transfer of ownership. Therefore, the transfer of the instant shares was unilaterally made regardless of the Plaintiff’s intent, and the Plaintiff Company did not have concluded a title trust agreement with the Plaintiff LB on the instant shares, and did not know at all about the preparation of the instant transfer certificate and the transfer of ownership.

2) Even if there was an agreement between the Plaintiffs on title trust regarding the instant shares, the Plaintiff mostB did not have the right to dispose of the instant shares as follows, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the instant shares were held in title trust with the Plaintiff Jeong.

A) The instant transfer certificate was prepared at the time of the survival of the largestCC, and at that time, the Plaintiff was not entitled to dispose of the instant shares owned by the largestCC.

B) Since Plaintiff LB had not been delegated by other co-inheritors, the co-inheritors, who are co-inheritors of the instant shares, Plaintiff LB did not have the right to dispose of the instant shares even after the death of the largestCC.

3) Therefore, the instant disposition based on the premise that a valid title trust exists between the Plaintiffs is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) On January 25, 2010, the largestCC was hospitalized at the Ouniversity hospital, and there was no clear awareness around January 8, 2010, stating as the date of preparation of the instant transfer certificate.

2) From June 1995, Plaintiff LB served as the representative director of the instant company from June 2, 1995, and owned more than 50% of the shares of the instant company and actually operated the instant company.

3) On June 2006, the Plaintiff Company entered the instant company and was in office as an internal director. On November 25, 2009, the Plaintiff Company retired from office at the temporary general meeting of shareholders on March 31, 2010, and was again in office as an internal director.

4) At the time of the above provisional shareholders’ meeting, Plaintiff LB(OB), Park KK(Plaintiff LB B’s spouse, OB’s children, LL(Plaintiff LB’s children, OO’s children, 0J(OO’s shares) and Plaintiff EA(OA’s shares) were registered as shareholders. The above provisional shareholders’ meeting participated in Plaintiff LB, LK, 0K, 0JJ and Plaintiff EA.

5) However, the minutes of the above provisional shareholders’ meeting were recorded only by three shareholders present at the meeting, and the Plaintiff Company did not enter them as shareholders present at the meeting. In addition, the instant shares registered under the name of Company A were not included in the number of shareholders present at the meeting.

6) On October 6, 201, the Plaintiff Company: (a) was a person who received the instant shares on a document; and (b) did not pay all the purchase price of the shares.

7) On October 6, 2011, Plaintiff B entered into an investigation as to whether the instant shares were held in title trust by a public official in charge of the OOtax secretary, and stated to the effect that the instant shares are transferred by falsity, and that the instant shares are in fact inherited property, and if the instant shares are divided by consultation, they should own the instant shares.

8) At the time of the death of the largestCC, Plaintiff LB’s shares of the instant company were ○○○○. However, around 2012, the number of Plaintiff LB’s shares was △△△△ (i.e., existing ○○ shares + the instant shares).

9) Meanwhile, around December 2011, Plaintiff LB et al. and five (5) were to consult and divide all of the instant shares to Plaintiff LB. Around December 201, the Plaintiff submitted a written confirmation.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's evidence 7, 8 (Partial), 12, 13, Eul's evidence 5, 6, 7, 8, Eul's evidence 11 (Partial), 12 (Partial), 13, and 14, the purport of the whole of the testimony and arguments by the 00J for witness.

D. Determination

1) Issues of the instant case

The issue of this case is whether there exists a valid title trust among the plaintiffs. In order to understand the existence of a valid title trust, it is necessary to first determine when the transfer certificate of this case was prepared, and who is the actual owner of the shares of this case.

2) Relevant legal principles

The provision on deemed donation under Article 45-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act shall apply in cases where the actual owner and the nominal owner make a registration, etc. in the future by agreement or communication with the nominal owner with respect to property that requires the transfer or exercise of the right, and thus, where the actual owner and the nominal owner make a registration, etc. in the name of the nominal owner unilaterally regardless of the intent of the nominal owner, it shall not apply. In this case, the tax authority can only prove that the actual owner is different from the nominal owner, and the burden of proving that the registration, etc. of the nominal owner was made in the unilateral act of the actual owner regardless of the intent of the nominal owner should be borne by the nominal owner who asserts that the registration, etc. of the nominal owner was made (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du15780, Feb. 14, 2008). In addition, the title trust relationship may be established only by an express agreement between the truster and the trustee (see, e.g.

3) The actual owner of the instant shares

In light of the following circumstances known by the above facts, notwithstanding the language and text of the instant transfer deed prepared as of January 8, 2010, the instant transfer certificate was prepared after the death of the largestCC, and it is reasonable to deem that the actual owner of the instant shares was the Plaintiff B, the heir of the largestCC and other co-inheritors, who was subject to consultation and division, solely by agreement.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, it can be deemed that there exists an implied title trust agreement on the instant shares, at least among the Plaintiffs, barring any special circumstance.

① around January 8, 2010, indicated in the instant transfer certificate as the date of preparation, the MaximumCC was hospitalized in the hospital as the aged 80 years old, and was in difficult condition to engage in normal activities. At that time, Plaintiff B and his spouse Park K and his family member LL, owned most of the shares of the instant company, and Plaintiff LB actually operated the instant company. In light of this, Plaintiff B could be deemed to have been in charge of the instant shares on behalf of the largestCC from January 8, 2010 to January 8, 2010.

② The Plaintiffs have worked for a long time with the representative director and in-house director at the instant company, and the Plaintiffs themselves have been engaged in the transfer of the instant shares only in documents, and are false. The Plaintiffs have not actually paid the transfer price of the instant shares.

③ In light of the Plaintiffs’ internal relationship, it is highly probable that the largestCC would have donated the instant shares to the Plaintiff Company to the Plaintiff Company in order to avoid the inheritance tax burden to be imposed upon the instant shares after the death of the largestCC. In light of the Plaintiffs’ internal relationship, the Plaintiff Company appears to have implicitly cooperated in the process of title trust.

④ Moreover, the date on which the instant transfer certificate was prepared is January 8, 2010, and even if the Plaintiff Company’s shareholder registry was registered as the shareholder of the instant company as of January 8, 2010, the Plaintiff Company’s temporary shareholders’ meeting of the instant company held on March 31, 2010 was unable to participate as the shareholder, and it does not seem that the Plaintiff Company actually exercised the shareholder’s right.

⑤ Plaintiff LB received the instant shares independently from the other co-inheritors of the largestCC by consultation and division, and around 2012, it appears that the title of the instant shares held in title trust by Plaintiff UA was recovered from the title of the instant shares.

4) Determination on the assertion of identity theft

As shown in the facts that the 00J, a director of the instant company, had prepared the instant transfer certificate by arbitrarily stealing the name of the Plaintiff Jeong and making use of it, it is difficult to believe in light of the aforementioned facts, and there is no evidence to support the fact that the instant transfer certificate was unilaterally prepared, or that the title trust was made with respect to the instant shares, regardless of the intent of the Plaintiff Jeong Jong-A.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit.

5) Determination as to the assertion of the existence of disposition right

A) First, we examine whether the title trust of the instant shares was made at the time of survival ofCC.

As seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that the title trust of the instant shares was made after the death of the largestCC, notwithstanding the language and text of the instant transfer deed.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit.

B) Next, at the time of title trust of the instant shares, we examine whether Plaintiff B had no authority to dispose of the shares since the fact that Plaintiff B was delegated by the remaining inheritors, who are co-owners of the instant shares.

Plaintiff LB had the authority to dispose of the shares of this case at least corresponding to his statutory share of inheritance (2/13) at the time of the appointment of title, and the disposition of this case is about the title trust of Plaintiff LB with Plaintiff LB’s shares equivalent to his statutory share of inheritance.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit.

6) Sub-decisions

Ultimately, the title trust agreement between the plaintiffs should be deemed valid, and there are no other circumstances to deem the plaintiffs to have no purpose of tax evasion. Thus, the instant disposition based on the deemed donation provision under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is lawful.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed in entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.