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 reasoning for the court’s explanation in this judgment is as follows: ① among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, the part regarding “ June 5, 2012” in the second sentence 19 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be used as “ June 1, 2012”; ② except for the addition of “paragraph 2” under the judgment of the court of first instance, the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance; thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion (1) is that shares added to the Plaintiff’s future shares issued with capital increase as “ August 9, 199,” “ June 5, 2002,” “stocks issued with capital increase,” and “stocks issued with capital increase,” among the shares of this case.
(2) As to the first argument, the title trust agreement between the Plaintiff and the actual owner of the shares issued with capital increase cannot be deemed as having been donated to the Plaintiff. In addition, even though there is no agreement on the title trust between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff on the shares issued with capital increase, the instant disposition that applied the provision on deemed donation under such premise is unlawful. (2) The title trust agreement on the shares issued with capital increase to the Plaintiff exists for a clear purpose irrelevant to tax avoidance, and there is no tax to be avoided at the time of the title trust or to avoid in the future, and is merely made in convenience to lower the number of stories necessary to register in the name register, a title truster of the said shares. (1) On the first argument, the first argument is one of the exceptions to the substance over form doctrine, and thus, the title trust agreement is deemed as a donation to the extent that it is intended to realize tax justice by effectively preventing any abuse of the title trust system as a means of tax avoidance, and it does not change the ownership of the title trust property.