증여세부과처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The reasons why the court should explain in this decision are as follows: (a) part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be cited as “paragraph (2)”; and (b) the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment of the plaintiffs to “paragraph (3)” under Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
2. Parts to be dried;
(a) Forms 2 through 9 of the decision of the first instance shall be followed in the following manner:
(1) As to the assertion that there was no tax avoidance purpose, (A) the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8828 of Dec. 31, 2007), which applies to the instant disposition, shall be deemed as having been subject to the said disposition.
The legislative intent of Article 45-2(1) of the Act on the “Presumption of Donation of Property in Title Trust” 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 a minor tax reduction incidental to the said title trust is generated, it cannot be readily concluded that there was such a purpose of tax avoidance in the title trust. However, in light of the legislative intent as seen above, it cannot be determined that there was a purpose of tax avoidance by applying the proviso of the said provision only if the purpose of tax avoidance is not included in the purpose of the title trust. Thus, if it is deemed that there was an intention of tax avoidance in addition to the other purpose, it cannot be deemed that there was no purpose of tax avoidance, and in this case, the burden of proof as to the fact that there was no purpose of tax avoidance exists a person who asserts it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Du175, Sept. 8, 2011.