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

A. On July 12, 2004, Nonparty 11,295 shares of XX Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "P") (hereinafter referred to as "first shares"); ② on May 22, 2006, 15,00 shares of O Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "OO") (hereinafter referred to as " second shares"); ③ on April 17, 2007, 34,100 shares of Y Construction Co., Ltd (hereinafter referred to as "Y Construction") (hereinafter referred to as "third shares"); and ④ on April 25, 2007, 9,90 shares of Y Construction (hereinafter referred to as "the fourth shares") were acquired in the Plaintiff's name.

B. The Defendant: (a) deemed that the actual owner of the instant shares Nos. 1 through 4 (hereinafter “instant shares”) is ParkA and the Plaintiff is merely a title trustee; (b) applied the legal fiction of donation of title trust property under Article 45-2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (hereinafter “Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”); (c) deemed that the Plaintiff donated the instant shares to ParkA; (d) on May 11, 2010, KRW 00 of the gift tax on the instant shares No. 1; (c) KRW 00 of the gift tax on the instant shares; (d) KRW 00 of the gift tax on the instant shares No. 3 shares; (e) KRW 00 of the gift tax on the instant shares; and (e) KRW 000 of the gift tax on the instant shares No. 4 shares (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on August 2, 2010, but was dismissed on October 11 of the same year.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 3 (including various numbers), Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including various numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff is an employee of the OO in which ParkA is operated. The Plaintiff listens to the words that it would cause seals from ParkA, and only thought that it is necessary to affix a seal to O documents, and that ParkA would have purchased the instant shares by marking that it had the Plaintiff’s seal. Accordingly, ParkA did not intend to trust the instant shares to the Plaintiff, but acquired the instant shares by stealing the Plaintiff’s name.

B. Even if family affairs and ParkA held title trust with the Plaintiff the instant shares, it did not constitute a gift under the proviso of Article 45-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and thus, it constitutes a case where the said shares are not deemed as a gift pursuant to the proviso of Article 4

C. In addition, the Plaintiff acquired the instant 4 shares with capital increase, and the shares issued with capital increase are merely the modified shares under the Plaintiff’s name. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that there was a new title trust.

D. Article 60(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that the value of the property on which the gift tax is levied shall be based on the market price as of the date of donation. Nevertheless, the Defendant imposed the gift tax on the basis of the value calculated according to the supplementary method of assessment under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and the Enforcement Decree thereof, not on the present market price of the shares

E. Even if it is lawful to impose gift tax on the basis of the value calculated according to family affairs and supplementary assessment methods, the Defendant omitted the deduction of 2001 taxes and public charges 00 won on the net income statement while evaluating the value of unlisted stocks for the instant disposition, and the amount of the income for each business year and the amount of the corporate tax are inconsistent with the Plaintiff’s report.

3. Relevant statutes;

Attached Form 3 is as listed in the "relevant Acts and subordinate statutes".

4. Determination

A. Determination on the argument of the above 2-A

(1) The legal fiction of donation of title trust property under Article 45-2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act applies to a case where the actual owner and the nominal owner enter into a registration or transfer of title in the name of the nominal owner by agreement or communication, regardless of the intent of the nominal owner. Thus, in a case where the actual owner unilaterally registers or transfers title in the name of the nominal owner, regardless of the intent of the nominal owner, it may not be applicable. In this case, the tax authority must prove only the fact that the actual owner is different from the nominal owner, and the fact that the registration or transfer of title, etc. was made by the unilateral act of the actual owner without relation to the intent of the nominal owner should be proved by the nominal owner who asserts it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 8Nu27, Oct. 11, 1988; 2004Du7009, Nov. 12, 200

(2) As to the instant case, the fact that the actual owner of the instant shares in the name of the Plaintiff is ParkA is the same as seen earlier, it is reasonable to deem that ParkA purchased the instant shares under the name of the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.

Furthermore, the following circumstances, i.e., evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, 3-1, and 3-3 of evidence Nos. 2-2, i.e., ① the Plaintiff is an employee of theO operated by ParkA, ② the Plaintiff’s explanation that ParkA would use the seal from ParkA, ② the Plaintiff would not simply use the official seal, and it would not be easily understandable that he would not use the official seal. ③ The Plaintiff did not assert that ParkA used the Plaintiff’s name in the request of the Tax Tribunal, which is the previous trial procedure, by asking the Tax Tribunal for the wrongful use of the Plaintiff’s name. The complaint in this case also stated that ParkA entrusted the Plaintiff with the name because it was impossible for the Plaintiff to refuse the request by requesting the Plaintiff to trust the title of the instant shares. However, the Plaintiff’s assertion that it was insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s testimony in the Plaintiff’s name by taking account of the following circumstances: < Amended by Act No. 10104, Oct. 5, 2015>

(3) The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

B. Determination as to the assertion of the above 2-B

(1) The legislative intent of Article 45-2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides for exceptions to the principle of substantial taxation in the purport that the act of tax avoidance using the title trust system is effectively prevented, thereby realizing the tax justice. In light of such legislative intent, only if the purpose of the title trust is not included in the purpose of tax avoidance, the rate of deemed donation cannot be applied by applying the proviso of the above provision, and if it is deemed that there was an intention of tax avoidance in addition to other main purpose, the burden of proving that there was no intention of tax avoidance is not the object of tax avoidance, and the burden of proving that there was no purpose of tax avoidance is against the person who asserts it (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du17175, Sept. 8, 20

(2) It is insufficient to acknowledge that the title trust of the instant shares was not subject to tax avoidance solely based on the health team, the testimony of Park Jong-A, and the party principal examination of the Plaintiff as to the instant case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

(3) The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

C. Determination as to the above 2-C. argument

According to the evidence Nos. 3-3 and 4-4 of evidence Nos. 3-3 and 4-4, ParkA may recognize the fact that on April 25, 2007, ParkA paid and acquired the shares of this case under the name of the plaintiff, and there is no reason to view that the sale and purchase of shares by paying the price and paying the subscription price for new shares and the subscription price for new shares allocated are different from the title trust agenda. Thus, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

D. Determination on the assertion of the above 2-D

(1) Article 60(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "the value of an asset on which a gift tax is levied under this Act shall be the market price as of the date of donation (hereinafter referred to as "date of appraisal"), and Article 60(2) of the same Act provides that "the market price under paragraph (1) shall be the value generally deemed to be established when a transaction is made freely between many and unspecified persons and shall include the expropriation price, public sale price, and appraisal price, which is recognized as the market price, as prescribed by Presidential Decree." Accordingly, Article 49(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "in the case of an asset for which a gift tax is recognized as the market price under Article 60(2) of the Act, it refers to the value verified by any of the following cases when it is traded, appraised, expropriated, auction or public sale

On the other hand, Article 60(3) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "where it is difficult to calculate the market price in applying paragraph (1), the value assessed by the methods stipulated in Articles 61 through 65 shall be considered the market price in consideration of the type, scale, transaction circumstances, etc. of the relevant property."

(2) According to the overall purport of the statement and arguments as to the instant case, the Defendant calculated the value per share of the instant shares by using the unlisted stock appraisal method pursuant to Article 60(3) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and Articles 54 through 56 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which are supplementary valuation methods, on the grounds that there was no fact of trading, appraisal, expropriation, auction, or public sale during the period of three months before or after July 12, 2004, which is the date of deemed donation of the instant shares.

(3) If so, it does not seem that the defendant erred in assessing the value of the shares of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

E. Determination as to the above 2- E. argument

(1) According to the evidence Nos. 10-1 and 6-4 of the evidence Nos. 10-1 and 6-4, in the tax settlement statement submitted by △△△ Group (referred to the telegraph in XX), the tax settlement statement submitted by △△△ Group (referred to the telegraph in XX) in 2001 is written in the column of 00 won, corporate tax, etc., and in the assessment statement of the value of the first stock in this case, the fact that the Defendant’s failure to pay the fixed tax amount under each tax law is 00 won (=00 won +00 won). Thus, this part of the allegation that the tax amount and the public bond have not been deducted is without merit.

(2) In addition, there is no evidence to support the Plaintiff’s assertion that the amount of income for each business year and the amount of corporate tax are inconsistent with the details of the Plaintiff’s report. Therefore, the Plaintiff’

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.