2. All of the plaintiff's main claims are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The primary claim: The imposition of gift tax on October 1, 2012 by the Defendant against the Plaintiff, the imposition of ○○○○○○○ (including additional tax) on the gift tax on October 1, 2012, and the imposition of gift tax on the Plaintiff on October 9, 2012 shall be revoked.

Preliminary Claim: The Defendant’s refusal of correction against the Plaintiff on October 10, 2012 shall be revoked (State)

The overlapping part of the claim seems to be a clerical error.

가. ☆☆☆는 ★★물산 주식회사(이하 '이 사건 회사'라고 한다)의 실질적인 운영자라서 이사이자 주주이고, 원고는 ☆☆☆의 조카로서 2006.경부터 이 사건 회사에서 근무하였고, 2010. 6. 25. 사내이사로 취임하였다.

B. On April 10, 2009, 100, the △△△○○○○○○○○○○ (○○ per cent) of the instant company’s shares held in title in the name of a title trust at the address of a branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the local branch of the branch of the branch

C. In the process of investigating the change of shares, etc. with respect to the instant company, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office deemed the Plaintiff to have donated the instant shares from △△△△△, and recommended the Plaintiff to file a return after the deadline. On June 29, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a return after the deadline to the effect that the instant shares were donated to the Defendant. On August 2, 2012, the head of the Seoul Regional Tax Office submitted a written request for correction stating that the instant shares

D. On October 1, 2012, the Defendant imposed a gift tax on the Plaintiff on ○○○○○○○○○ (including additional tax) on the shares that the Plaintiff acquired on October 1, 2012 in the specification of the share transfer status, and imposed a gift tax on ○○○○○○ (including additional tax) on the shares that the Plaintiff acquired on October 9, 2012 in the specification of the share transfer status, and notified the Plaintiff of the purport that the Plaintiff would refuse the Plaintiff’s request for correction on October 10, 2012 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. On December 18, 2012, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an objection with the Commissioner of the Central Tax Office, but was dismissed on January 25, 2013. On February 28, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a request for national tax review with the National Tax Service, but was dismissed on June 12, 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6, Eul's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 through 14 (including the relevant number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's partial testimony (excluding the part not trust's front and rear testimony) and the purport of the whole

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful (determination on the main claim)

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Absence of title trust agreement

△△△, the representative director of the instant company and the actual owner of the instant shares, at the time △△△△△○, directed the dedicated company management department at the time of the company management department to prepare a detailed statement of stock transfer status as if the Plaintiff acquired the instant shares. Since the dedicated company did not confirm the Plaintiff’s intent and forged the Plaintiff’s seal and made a tax declaration, the Plaintiff became aware of the said fact at the time of receiving the instant disposition from the Defendant. The provision on constructive gift of title trust applies only to cases where there exists an agreement between the actual owner and the nominal owner, and thus, the Plaintiff and the instant disposition made on a different premise is unlawful.

2) Non-existence of tax avoidance purpose

Even if the fact of title trust is acknowledged, in order to levy gift tax on the title trust, the purpose of tax avoidance is to ensure that the △△△△ is required. If a shareholder of the stock company is one in the process of collecting all the shares of the stock company, which was held in title trust to other persons, there is a problem of credibility with the third party, and in light of the past practice that the shareholders or promoters at the time of the establishment of the stock company should be several persons, the Plaintiff prepared the statement of stock transfer in the name of the company. In addition, since the company did not pay dividends once after the establishment of the company, there was no outcome of tax avoidance or intention to lower the global income tax rate related to dividend income, △△△△ has already been an oligopolistic shareholder at the time of transfer of the instant shares in the name of the Plaintiff, and the issue of deemed acquisition tax was not generated because the instant company had already acquired the assets subject to deemed acquisition tax, and both the transfer income tax and securities transaction tax arising in the event of stock transfer are proportional to a single tax, there is no purpose of tax avoidance.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

In full view of each of the above evidence and each of the evidence Nos. 7 through 11, the following facts are acknowledged.

1) ☆☆☆는 이 사건 회사의 실질적 사주로서 2003.경부터 2007. 6. 28.까지 이 사건 회사의 총 주식 ○○○주 중 형 ●●●에게 ○○○주(○○%), 매제 ◆◆◆에게 ○○○주(○○%), 외사촌 ◇◇◇과 직원 ■■■에게 각 ○○○주(각 ○%)의 주식을 명의신탁하고 이 사건 회사를 운영하여 왔다.

2) ☆☆☆는 위 주식 중 2007. 6. 29. ●●●, ■■■의 주식을 양수받아 전체 주

On December 10, 2009, ○○○○○○(○○○% of the total shares) was acquired on December 10, 2009, and finally owned ○○○○○(○○○% of the total shares).

3) Meanwhile, from around 2006, the Plaintiff was an employee with a substitute position in the instant company. On June 25, 2010, the Plaintiff was registered as a director in the corporate register on June 30, 2010.

4) 원고가 2009. 4. 10. ◇◇◇의 주식(총 주식의 ○○%)을, 2010. 12. 31. ◆◆◆로부터 그 보유주식 중 ○○○주(총 주식의 ○○%)를 양수받았다는 내용의 주식 양수도계약서가 작성되어 있고, 원고는 그 무렵 주주명부에 주주로 기재되었다.

D. Determination

1) Determination on the first argument

A) The provision on deemed donation under Article 41-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act shall apply in cases where the actual owner and the nominal owner enter into a registration, etc. in the name of the nominal owner by agreement or communication with respect to the property that requires the transfer or exercise of the right, so that the registration, etc. is unilaterally made in the name of the nominal owner regardless of the intent of the nominal owner. In this case, the tax authority must prove only that the actual owner is different from the nominal owner, and the verification 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 made by the nominal owner (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du15780, Feb. 14, 2008). Moreover, the title trust relationship is not necessarily established by an express contract between the truster and the trustee, but may also be established by implied agreement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da49091, Jan.

B) In light of these various circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff was aware of, or impliedly consented to, the acceptance of the instant shares in the name of the Plaintiff in the name of the actual owner of the instant shares, as well as the statement of No. 3 and the witness testimony, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, according to each of the above facts, the Plaintiff was working in the instant company from 2006 as a colon of △△△△△, and was registered as a director in around 2010, and was reported and reported after the gift tax due to the acquisition of the instant shares, and the Plaintiff was notified of the return and payment after the gift tax due to the acquisition of the instant shares. In light of these various circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff was aware of, or impliedly consented to, the acquisition of the instant shares in the name of the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s aforementioned assertion is without merit.

2) Judgment on the second argument

A) The legislative purport of Article 45-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is to recognize an exception to the principle of substantial taxation to the purport that the act of tax avoidance using the title trust system is effectively prevented, thereby realizing the tax justice. Thus, if the title trust was deemed to have been made for any reason other than the purpose of tax avoidance, and only the reduction of minor taxes incidental to the title trust was made, it cannot be readily concluded that there was such a purpose of tax avoidance in the title trust. However, in light of the legislative purport above, inasmuch as the purpose of the title trust is not included in the purpose of tax avoidance, it cannot be determined that there was a purpose of tax avoidance by applying the proviso of the above provision only when the purpose of the title trust is not included in the purpose of tax avoidance, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there was no intention of tax avoidance. In such a case, the burden of proof on the fact that there was no purpose of tax avoidance in the name of the claimant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du1931, Apr. 9, 2009).

Furthermore, barring any special circumstance, whether there was a purpose of tax avoidance or not shall be determined as at the time of the title trust of the pertinent property, which is the issue of whether there was a deemed donation of a title trust, and it is reasonable to view that it is not reasonable to determine as at the time of the actual evasion of any tax after the title trust (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du4300, Jan. 27

B) In the instant case, as to whether the △△△△△△ was made a title trust to the Plaintiff with any other purpose unrelated to tax avoidance, the question was whether the △△△△△△ was made, and in view of the practice that had been required by several promoters at the time of the establishment of the corporation, the company’s credit is deemed to have a problem in the case of one company, and it was merely the acquisition of the instant shares in the name of the Plaintiff, which is Kak, under the necessity of the business that ought to divide shares into shares, and it did not vary with the actual owner and the nominal owner of the instant shares for the purpose of tax evasion. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge it

오히려 앞서 본 사실과 증거에 의해 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ① 2001. 7. 24. 법률 제6488호로 개정되어 같은 날부터 시행된 상법은 주식회사의 설립에 필요한 발기인 수에 아무런 제한을 두지 않고 있었는데, 이 사건 회사는 그 이후인 2003. 12. 3. 설립된 점, ② ☆☆☆는 처음 이 사건 회사를 설립할 때 중국에 있었기 때문에 국내에서 사업을 영위할 목적으로 이 사건 회사를 설립하면서 ●●●, ◆◆◆, ◇◇◇, ■■■에게 주식을 명의신탁하고 이들을 이사 및 감사로 등기부에 등기하였다고 주장하지만, ☆☆☆가 원고에게 이 사건 주식을 명의신탁한 것은 2009.경 내지 2010.경에 위와 같은 기존 명의신탁을 해지하고 본인이 주식을 회수하는 과정에서 이루어진 것으로, 다시 원고에게 주식을 명의신탁하는 것이 사업상 필요하였다고 인정할만한 특별한 사정이 없는 점 등을 고려하여 보면, 원고가 주장하는 사정과 제출한 증거만으로는 ☆☆☆가 원고에게 이 사건 주식을 명의신탁한 것이 오로지 사업상 필요에 의한 것으로 조세회피 목적이 없었다고 단정할 수 없다.

c) We examine u300 and whether the purpose of tax avoidance is not recognized.

Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 22 subparag. 2 of the former Local Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 10221, Mar. 31, 2010) establish secondary tax liability for oligopolistic shareholders and acquisition tax deemed as oligopolistic shareholders under Article 105(6) of the former Local Tax Act when the total number of stocks of all shareholders with a special relationship with a relative and all other related shareholders centering on any specific shareholder is more than 0% of the total number of stocks issued by the relevant corporation. In the process of cancelling the existing title trust relationship, a kind of insignia re-titled the instant stocks to the Plaintiff as a relative with a special relationship with ○○ degree of relationship with the Plaintiff during the process of cancelling the existing title trust relationship, and further falls under the first oligopolistic shareholder at the time of the second title trust on November 30, 2010. This case’s company did not have any dividends paid once after the establishment, and thus there was no global income tax evasion based on

① However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff is not deemed to have a clear purpose of tax avoidance to the extent that there was no objective of tax avoidance. ② Whether there was a purpose of tax avoidance should be determined at the time of title trust. It is insufficient to readily conclude that the instant shares were not liable for global income tax on dividend income accruing from the possession of the instant shares in the future at the time of title trust to the Plaintiff only with the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, and it cannot be readily concluded that there was no purpose of tax avoidance even at the time of title trust on the instant shares solely on the ground that the instant company did not actually distribute dividends. ③ According to the evidence evidence No. 5, the non-disposition of the instant company’s earned surplus reaches ○○○ in the year 2008, 209, and ○○○○○ in the year 2010, and that there was no new risk of tax avoidance by the Plaintiff’s new title trust, and thus, it is difficult to view that there was no new risk of tax avoidance by the Plaintiff’s new title trust in the title trust relationship with the Plaintiff.

3. Whether the conjunctive claim part among the instant lawsuit is legitimate

In a case where a tax authority makes an increase or decrease in the tax base and amount of tax reported by a taxpayer on the ground that there is an error or omission in the tax base and amount of tax reported by the taxpayer, the taxpayer can file a claim for correction of the increased or decreased tax base and amount of tax pursuant to Article 45-2(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and the system of a claim for correction does not prevent the filing of an appeal litigation against the disposition of imposition of the increased or decreased tax base. Thus, a taxpayer may contest the increased or decreased tax disposition even by filing an appeal litigation seeking revocation of the disposition of increase or decrease, separate from a claim for correction. However, an appeal suit seeking revocation of a disposition of increase or decrease in tax base and amount of tax is both an appeal litigation for seeking revocation of a disposition of increase or decrease in tax base and amount of tax, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there is a need or interest for a taxpayer to undergo a review and determination on the same tax base and amount of tax in duplicate using two different methods of appeal. Therefore, in a case where a request for revocation of a disposition of increase or decrease can be deliberated and judgment on the merits, barring special circumstances.

In the case of this case, the plaintiff did not receive a donation of the stocks of this case with the main claim, and sought the revocation of the disposition of this case for the acquisition of the stocks of this case, and sought the revocation of the disposition of this case for the same purpose as the grounds for the disposition of this case. The plaintiff cannot be deemed to have any need or interest to duplicate the deliberation and judgment on the main claim through the two methods of appeal. Thus, the main claim of this case for the revocation of the disposition of this case among the lawsuit of this case is unlawful because there is no need or interest to seek the revocation in

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the plaintiff's conjunctive claim among the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed, and the main claim is without merit, and it is all dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.