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

A. From August 25, 2009 to December 1, 2009, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office entered into an agreement with △△△ Investment Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as △△△△△△△), which was a corporation listed in KOSDAQ, to make funds to participate in the above capital increase, and the head of the Seoul Regional Tax Office discovered an agreement with △△△△△△△ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as △△△△△△), to make funds in the name of the Plaintiff’s △△△, 160 capital increase, which was 4,160 won per share of 4,160 capital increase, during the process of conducting an integrated investigation into corporate tax. The head of the Seoul Regional Tax Office, upon which △△△△ Co., Ltd. received 47,600 capital increase from △△, 1060, 2000 capital increase, 3006, 4000 capital increase, 1608, 2086, 4060.

B. Accordingly, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office considers that OT received 405,600 new shares from an OT to a third party, such as the Plaintiff, and held title trust with the Plaintiff, etc., while participating in the above capital increase increase, and applied the provision on constructive gift of title trust under Article 45-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8828, Dec. 31, 2007; hereinafter the same shall apply) to the provision on constructive gift of title trust under Article 45-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8828, Dec. 16, 2005; 16,259 won per share of the shares of the non-party company as of December 16, 205, calculated the amount calculated by multiplying the value of donated shares by the number of shares each allocated to the Plaintiff as the value of donated shares [in the case of the Plaintiff, the value of donated shares is calculated as the value of donated property.

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on May 27, 2010, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the decision on December 29, 2010.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Eul Nos. 1 and 2 (including additional numbers), and whether all pleadings are held

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff was allocated new shares issued by the non-party company in the name of the Plaintiff for the purpose of lending the new shares subscription fund to the non-party company to participate in the capital increase with the capital increase offered by the non-party company. However, the Defendant’s disposition of this case, which imposed the gift tax on the Plaintiff by applying the provision on the constructive gift of title trust under Article 45-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, should be revoked on the ground that, without any grounds, an OT was allocated only the name of new shares to be received by the Plaintiff pursuant to the title trust agreement concluded between the Plaintiff and the OT, without any grounds, according to the substance of the

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) Around December 2005, the non-party company attempted to implement the new shares equivalent to 477,600 shares per share by the third party allocation method; the non-party company's major shareholder of the non-party company entered into an agreement with the credit service company to raise funds to participate in the above subscription method on December 1, 2005, under the condition that △△△ shall pay 4% interest per month between the company and △△△△, on condition that the fund investors are recruited, the OT shall pay 3% of the fund to △△△△△ in addition to the above interest (hereinafter referred to as the "agreement to raise funds in this case"). The main contents of the agreement to raise funds are as follows.

(The following table omitted)

2) After December 8, 2005, △△△ entered into an investment agreement (hereinafter referred to as the “instant investment agreement”) with 11 fund investors, including Jeong, who are the Plaintiff’s wife, on condition that 4% interest is paid per month between the fund investors and 1.687.296.00 won, on condition that 1.687.296.00 won (hereinafter referred to as the “instant investment agreement”). The main contents of the said investment agreement (Evidence A 3) are as follows.

(The following table omitted)

3) The 11 fund investors, including regular AA, concluded the instant investment agreement with △△△, and raised a total of KRW 1,687,296,00 with the subscription fund for new shares. Pursuant to the instant financing agreement, △△△ was issued cashier’s checks equivalent to the amount equivalent to 7% of the subscription fund raised from OT to the service commission and interest, and the amount equivalent to 338,000,000 won, and then issued to the fund investors a cashier’s checks equivalent to 4% of the subscription fund for new shares raised from interest pursuant to the instant investment agreement, and issued the said cashier’s checks to the fund.

4) Meanwhile, the OT shared 405,60 shares out of 477,600 shares out of 477,600 shares issued by the non-party company to participate in the capital increase with new shares issued on December 9, 2005 and distributed 405,60 shares in the name of the fund investors or a third party designated by the fund investors. The detailed details are as follows.

(The following table omitted)

5) After that, 11 fund investors, including regular AA, sold new stocks allocated five times from December 23, 2005 to February 1, 2006 to 7,425,600 new stocks allocated five times from February 1, 2006, after deducting KRW 1,687,296,00 of the invested principal and returning cashier's checks equivalent to KRW 5,737,782,440 of the remaining sales amount, and KRW 338,00,000 of the secured money, to △△△△△, and △△△△△ returned them to △△△ as they are.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) In order to establish a deemed donation of a title trust on shares under the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, an agreement is required between a truster and a trustee who are the parties to the title trust to establish a title trust relationship. The title trust shall be duly established. The title trust is distinguishable between the actual owner and the nominal owner, and transfer to a title trustee is made on the main registry of the shares, and the purpose of tax avoidance is to achieve the purpose of tax avoidance. In addition, even if the ownership of shares is transferred from the debtor to the creditor for the purpose of transfer, the ownership of the shares is not the ownership of the said shares, but the ownership of the security right is not the ownership of the said shares, so there is no room for applying the provision on deemed donation of a title trust under Article 45-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 86Nu517

2) 위 법리에 비추어 이 사건에 관하여 보건대, 앞서 인정한 사실관계에 앞서 든 증거들 및 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ① △△는 OOT와 사이에 이 사건 자금조달약정을 체결하면서 작성한 자금조달약정서에 '△△가 조달한 투자원리금을 반환받을 때까지 OOT로부터 투자금 대비 20% 상당의 OOT 발행 자기앞수표를 교부받아 보관하고(제2조 제5항, 제5조 제2항), 유상증자 참여로 취득할 신주도 △△ 명의로 배정받아 △△가 보관하되 그 신주에 대한 권리 및 신주를 담보로 보관하고 있는 중에 발생하는 선주인수권은 OOT에게 있으며(제6조 제11항), △△ 명의로 배정받은 신주와 담보로 제공받은 자기앞수표의 시가 총액이 △△가 조달한 투자금의 150% 이하가 될 경우 OOT는 △△에게 추가 담보를 제공하고 OOT가 추가 담보를 제공하지 않을 경우 신주와 자기앞수표를 처분하여 투자원리금에 충당할 수 있도록 하는 권리를 △△에게 부여한다(제6조 제5항)'는 취지의 내용을 명시하였는바, 이에 따르면 △△는 OOT와 이 사건 자금조달약정을 체결하면서 투자원리금의 반환을 담보하기 위하여 OOT로부터 자기앞수표를 교부받는 외에 유상증자 참여로 배정받을 신주도 △△ 명의로 배정받아 이를 보관하기로 약정한 것으로 보이는 점, ② 이후 △△가 이 사건 자금조달약정에 따라 정AA 등 11명의 자금투자자들을 모집하고 이들과 사이에 이 사건 투자약정을 체결하면서 작성한 투자약정서에도 '△△는 자금투자자들의 투자원리금을 담보하기 위하여 자금투자자들에게 투자금 대비 20% 상당의 자기앞수표를 교부하고(제2조), △△가 자금투자자들의 투자금을 전액 상환하였을 경우 자금투자자들은 주식 및 담보물건을 반환하기로 한다(제8조)'는 취지의 내용 을 명시하였는바, 이에 따르면 △△는 자금투자자들과 이 사건 투자약정을 체결하면서 OOT로부터 부여받은 위 담보 권한과 대체로 동일한 내용의 권한을 자금투자자들에 게 재차 부여한 것으로 보이는 점, ③ 실제로 정AA 등 자금투자자들은 이 사건 투자 약정에 따라 △△로부터 약정 선이자를 지급받고 1억 원 내지 2억 원 내외의 자금을 투자한 후 신주를 그들 또는 그들이 지정하는 제3자 명의로 배정받아 이를 보관하다가 OOT의 매도 지시에 따라 신주를 매도하고 투자원금을 공제한 나머지 매도대금을 전액 △△에게 반환하였고, △△ 또한 이 사건 자금조달약정에 따라 자금투자자들을 모집하여 OOT로부터 약정 선이자 및 용역수수료를 교부받은 후 자금투자자들로부터 받은 신주매도대금을 OOT에게 그대로 반환한 점, ④ 당시 △△의 대표였던 최BB는 이 사건과 관련하여 세무조사를 받으면서 '△△는 OOT와 자금투자자들 사이를 중개 하는 역할을 담당하였는데, 이 사건 유상증자로 취득한 신주의 실질적인 소유권은 OOT에 있었으나, 다만 투자금의 반환을 담보할 목적으로 자금투자자들이 그들 명의로 유상증자 대금을 납입하여 신주를 배정받게 된 것이며, 일부 자금투자자들이 타인 명의로 유상증자대금을 납입한 이유는 잘 모르겠다'는 취지로 진술하였고, 당시 실무를 담당하였던 △△의 직원 김CC도 '자금투자자들은 차용금에 대한 담보로서 신주를 보관한 것이고, 신주에 대한 실질적인 소유권은 OOT에 있었다'는 취지로 진술한 점, ⑤ 반면에 OOT 또는 △△와 자금투자자들 사이에 단지 주식의 소유 명의만을 신탁 할 수 있을 정도의 인적 신뢰관계가 형성되어 있었다고 보이지도 않고, 이들 사이에 소외 회사 발행의 신주를 명의신탁하기로 하는 약정이 있었다고 볼 만한 근거자료가 전혀 제출된바 없는 점, ⑥ 한편 주식에 질권을 설정함으로써 주식을 담보목적물로 할 수는 있으나, 주식의 명의자를 담보권자로 이전시키는 양도담보의 방법으로 담보권을 설정하는 것이 담보권 확보 및 회수에 훨씬 더 용이한 측면이 있으므로, 오히려 담보 권자의 입장에서 볼 때 질권보다는 양도담보를 설정할 유인이 더 크다고 보이는 점, ⑦ 채무자가 채무의 변제를 담보하기 위하여 자산을 양도하는 계약을 체결한 경우에는 소득세법상으로도 양도로 보지 아니하는 경우에 해당하는 점(소득세법 시행령 제151조 참조) 등을 종합하여 보면, 위 주식의 실제 소유자인 OOT와 명의자인 원고가 다르더라도 그것만으로 OOT가 원고에게 양도담보권이 아닌 소유권을 명의신탁하였다고 볼 수 는 없고, 오히려 자금투자자 중 1명인 정AA는 단지 형식적으로 주식의 소유 권한만을 이전받는 명의신탁 목적이 아닌 투자원리금의 반환을 담보하기 위한 양도담보 목적으로 원고 명의로 소외 회사 발행의 신주 24,000주를 배정받았다고 봄이 상당하므로, 이에 대하여는 구 상속세및증여세법 제45조의2 제1항 소정의 명의신탁의 증여의제 규정이 적용될 수 없다(가사 위 주식에 대한 실제 소유자인 OOT와 명의자인 원고가 다른 것이 구 상속세및증여세법 제45조의2 제1항 소정의 "권리의 이전이나 그 행사에 등기 등을 요하는 재산에 있어서 실제 소유자와 명의자가 다른 경우"에 해당하여 위 규정에 따라 명의자인 원고가 실제소유자인 OOT로부터 이를 증여받은 것으로 본다고 하더라도, 위에서 본 바와 같은 실제 소유자와 명의자가 다른 경위 및 주식 취득 이후의 실제 처분과정 등에 비추어 조세회피와 상관없는 뚜렷한 목적이 있었던 이상, 조세회피의 목적 없이 원고의 명의로 위 주식의 명의개서를 한 경우에 해당한다).

3) Furthermore, even if A.I.D. was allocated the advance share for the purpose of transfer as above, under the name of the Plaintiff, and ultimately, AA would have been the result of title trust with the Plaintiff. In such a case, whether the provision on the constructive gift of title trust under Article 45-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act can be applied to the case of title trust with the right of transfer for transfer other than ownership. However, even if the ownership of shares is held for the purpose of transfer for transfer is held in the future of the obligee, the obligee is merely the owner of the above shares, not the ownership of the said shares, but the ownership of the security right. Thus, even if the right of transfer for transfer is held in title trust, the above legal principle is still applicable to the Plaintiff. ② Even if the legislative purpose of Article 45-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is to effectively prevent the act of tax avoidance using the title trust system, and thus, it is difficult to interpret the said provision as the owner of the right of transfer for transfer under the title trust without law.

4) Therefore, the Defendant’s instant disposition that was based on the premise that the OT held the title trust of 24,000 shares issued by the non-party company to the Plaintiff is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.