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

A. On July 1, 1996, KimG and KoN established the FF Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”), each of them invested a total of 20,000 shares in 10,000 shares. Among them, each of 1,600 shares to the Plaintiffs, who are the relatives of KimG and GoN, are title trusted with 1,60 shares, 2,000 shares to Hah, the wife of KimG, and 2,000 shares in 20,000 shares in 20,000 shares in 197. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 15095, Jun. 30, 1997; Presidential Decree No. 17068, Jun. 30, 1997; Presidential Decree No. 17090, Mar. 20, 2000>

B. On February 4, 1999, the Plaintiff AD, PCC, and SB transferred the title of the shares held in title trust to KimK, KimL, and KimM.

C. In the process of capital increase in March 15, 1999, KimG and GoN trusted 4,800 shares each to Plaintiff KimA and KimE, with the total of 30,000 shares each of 60,000 shares, and each of them trusted 6,40 shares each to Plaintiff KimA and KimE in the process of capital increase in October 5, 2000, with each of 80,000 shares each of them contributed to the total of 40,000 shares each in the process of capital increase in the process of capital increase in title trust (hereinafter “title trust of this case”).

D. The Defendant conducted an investigation on the transfer income tax on the non-listed stocks of the instant company in accordance with the regular audit by the director of the Busan Regional Tax Office in 2009, but discovered the title trust of the instant case. Accordingly, the Defendant applied the statutory provision on the constructive gift of title trust property under the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6301, Dec. 29, 2000; hereinafter the same shall apply) to the Plaintiffs on October 13, 2009 as indicated in the following table. After assessing the value per share of the instant company’s stocks at each time of capital increase for new shares, the Defendant determined and notified each of the instant gift tax for the year 196, 197, 199, 200 by calculating the value of donated stocks of the instant company at each time of capital increase for new shares.

E. The Plaintiffs dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on January 11, 2010, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the said appeal on the grounds that the title trust in the instant case cannot be deemed to have been subject to tax avoidance on March 16, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 to 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The plaintiffs were asked to lend the plaintiffs' names to meet the number of promoters required by the Commercial Act, so that they would hinder the title trust of this case. In fact, the plaintiffs did not acquire the shares through payment of stock price or capital increase with capital increase. Even if the shares trusted by KimG and KoN were acquired in whole, they did not become the oligopolistic shareholders liable for the secondary tax liability and deemed acquisition tax liability, and even if the company of this case did not perform dividends in 2008 and did not withhold the dividend income tax until that time, considering these various circumstances, the disposition of this case that the defendant rendered by making a different judgment is unlawful, even though it did not have the purpose of evading the tax in the title trust of this case.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) The legislative intent of Article 41-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, which provides for the constructive gift of the property trusted in title trust, recognizes an exception to the substance over form principle to the purport that the tax justice is realized by effectively preventing the act of tax avoidance by using the title trust system. Thus, only where the purpose of tax avoidance is not included in the purpose of title trust, the application of subparagraph 1 of the same paragraph is possible, and in such a case, the burden of proving that there was no purpose of tax avoidance is the person asserting it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Du13649, Dec. 23, 2004; 2004Du1223, Jan. 28, 200

Therefore, the fact that there was no purpose of tax avoidance can be proven by means of proving that there was another purpose, not the purpose of tax avoidance. However, as the nominal owner who bears the burden of proof, there was a clear objective of tax avoidance to the extent that there was no objective of tax avoidance in the title trust, and if there was no tax evasion in the future at the time of the title trust or in the future, by objective and conclusive evidence, it should be proved to the extent that there was no doubt (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Du11220, Sept. 22, 2006).

2) On the instant case, the Plaintiffs asserted that there was no actual payment of the amount equivalent to the value of stocks acquired in the course of acquiring the shares through the title trust of this case, and on the other hand, the Plaintiffs did not prove that there was a clear purpose of tax avoidance to the extent that there was no objective of tax avoidance in the instant title trust, to the extent that there was no objective of tax avoidance.

On the other hand, whether there was no purpose of tax avoidance or not should be determined at the time of the title trust, and it should not be determined as to whether there was a tax evasion or not, and in fact, even if the company of this case did not have a result of evading dividend income by paying dividends for the first time in 2008, it is merely a situation after the title trust, and it cannot be readily concluded that there was no purpose of tax avoidance or avoidance in the title trust of this case solely on the ground that the whole acquisition of the shares held by KimG and KoN was not an oligopolistic shareholder even if he acquired the shares held in title trust by KimG and KoN, and rather, according to the facts acknowledged earlier, under the title trust of this case, Y or GoN reported to the tax office on the shares held in title trust of this case to the plaintiffs as the stocks that they did not have acquired, there is

Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion that there is no purpose of tax avoidance in the title trust of this case is without merit, and the defendant's disposition of this case is justified.

3. Conclusion

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