2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Of the disposition imposing gift tax on the Plaintiffs on November 1, 2013, the Defendant revoked the disposition imposing penalty tax of KRW 26,948,113,710 (=additional penalty tax of KRW 10,632,516,753 + additional tax for unfaithful payment + KRW 16,315,596,957).

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and all plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

This court's reasoning is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the addition as follows. Thus, this court's reasoning is acceptable in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The addition;

The Defendant asserts to the effect that even though Plaintiff 2 received the instant shares from Plaintiff 1 in title trust, it constitutes an unfair non-report on the cause of gift tax imposition, which constitutes a case where Plaintiff 2 received the instant shares from Plaintiff 1 in title trust, since it constitutes not only the fact that the first trustee was a donor but also the cause was recorded differently from the actual fact.

The legislative purport of Articles 47-2(2)1 and 47-3(2)1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 9911, Jan. 1, 2010); and Article 27(2)6 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22038, Feb. 18, 2010) is to impose sanctions on taxpayers who violate their duty to report tax base or amount by unlawful means, as it is difficult for the tax authorities to discover and exercise their right to impose tax, where it is difficult to find any fact that serves as the basis for calculating the tax base or amount of national tax, or where there is an unlawful act such as producing false facts, or where it is found that there is an error in a fraudulent scheme or other unlawful act that makes it impossible or considerably difficult to impose or collect taxes, and it does not change the previous Supreme Court’s new imposition disposition by 97Da1971, Apr. 1, 207 without reporting it (see, 20197).

According to Article 45-2 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9916, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the same), the title trust of shares is deemed to be a donation. The title trust of shares is deemed to be a donation. The Plaintiff 1, the owner of the shares of this case, under title trust with the Nonparty, changed the title trustee to Plaintiff 2, and accordingly, Plaintiff 2 filed a report on the tax base of gift tax to the effect that Plaintiff 2 received the shares of this case from the Nonparty within the statutory reporting period, and even if Plaintiff 2 did not become the title truster at the time of the said report, the donor as the non-party, and the cause was also stated as a donation, it does not change the basic fact within the scope of the same taxation cause, and thus, the Defendant did not cancel the original disposition of gift tax and did not report the gift tax (see Article 47(2) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act) and Article 53(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is just and the defendant's appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim So-young (Presiding Judge)