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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s gift tax of 251,034,460 won and year 2011 pertaining to the gift tax of 2010 owed to the Plaintiff on April 5, 2013

The imposition of gift tax of KRW 274,121,210 shall be revoked.

(a) Over August 2, 2004, the head of the AA, the Plaintiff’s father, the LBB, and the LAA shall invest each of the KRW 600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000;

(A) The corporation of this case (hereinafter referred to as "the corporation of this case") was an unlisted corporation, and as of February 10, 2009

The total number of shares issued by the Company is 60,000 shares, which shall be 25,00 shares among them,

this 8,000 shares, KimA's 9,00 shares, and KimB's ownership of 18,00 shares.

was made.

B. With respect to shares 12,500 shares of the headA on November 30, 2010, the Plaintiff is entitled to shares 5,000 shares of the headA.

on January 13, 2011, 12,500 shares of the Chapter A.

As to the plaintiff, the transfer of title is completed in the future.

C. On April 5, 2013, the Defendant: (a) with respect to the shares of the Company of this case; (b) from the DamageBA

25,00 shares, 5,000 shares, each of which shall be transferred to the Plaintiff by the Head of the Gu and the head of the Si/Gun/Gu.

The plaintiff, on the ground that "a title trust was made to the plaintiff with 30,000 shares by forming appearance as if it were held."

Moreover, gift tax of 251,034,460 won, and 274,121,210 won of gift tax of 2011 was imposed and notified (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case").

D. Upon filing an objection on July 5, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on November 7, 2013.

However, it was decided on April 14, 2014.

Each entry of the evidence of heading 1 through 4, each of the evidence of heading 1 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply)

The purport of the entire pleadings and arguments

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Around October 2009, the DamageB agreed to acquire 25,000 shares of the instant company from the HeadA at KRW 1 billion but paid only KRW 300 million equivalent to the price of KRW 7,500,000;

The remainder 17,500 shares that the plaintiff was unable to pay for the remaining 17,50 shares

Since a contract is concluded and 17,500 shares are taken over, the above 17,500 shares are held in title trust by the grandchildrenB.

not received. 5,000 shares in the name of ParkA are also entered into a sales contract with Park A and taken over by the plaintiff.

As such, it is not (1) the title trust is not made by the DamageB (1).

2) Even if the grandchildren held the shares of the Company of this case on title trust with the Plaintiff, at the time when the grandchildren held the shares of the Company

It is impossible to operate the company of this case because it was a bad credit holder and is expected to be a long-term life.

In order to prevent the re-election of other shareholders by making the termination and the plaintiff manage the company of this case.

As a result, there was no purpose of tax avoidance (2).

(Plaintiff) In rendering the disposition of this case, the Plaintiff’s share value per stock of the instant company

The third change was asserted to the effect that the instant disposition was unlawful since it was calculated at a high price.

At the hearing date, the above argument was withdrawn.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) (1) Determination on the assertion

Each of the above evidences, Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 2 to 3, and the whole of the arguments

(1) In full view of all the facts, the meeting of this case is held by the handB on August 2, 2004 by making joint investments with the head of the Dong and the Park.

20% of the shares of the Company in this case shall be owned by the DamageB in acquiring the shares of the Company in this case, and the name thereof shall be entrusted to the Bank, Park, etc., and (2) the DamageB shall be from the HeadA on October 30, 2009.

In acquiring 33% of the shares in the Company of this case in the amount of KRW 1 billion, the payment shall be made:

The payment shall be made in ten installments from November 1, 2009 to December 31, 2013 by one hundred million won.

The Agreement was made on November 5, 2009, and 300 million won out of the above payments shall be paid to the President and November 6, 2009.

“Receipt and Statement of Performance” confirming the payment of the above KRW 300 million between the head of the Gu and the AA.

(3) The instant meeting, opened in the name of the Plaintiff around November 30, 2010 by the head of the Gu, and

17,500 shares of the Company from the time of acquisition by the Company from the time of acquisition by the Company

(4) At the time of the tax investigation, on around 2010 and around 2011, the headA decided to transfer the shares of the instant company to the grandchildren.

The change of entry was made to the Plaintiff, while the lossB and its payment were consulted, the lossB was detained, and the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff stated that they did not consult on the price, and Park Jae also transferred 5,000 shares of the instant company to the lossB on November 30, 2010.

The plaintiff was the plaintiff, and the plaintiff did not consult about the payment of the price.

(5) The grandchildrenB, at the time of the tax investigation, investing 300 million won in the Company of this case.

ownership of 20% of the shares of the Company, but not registered in the register of shareholders, and

Corporation’s shares are not well known, but the Corporation shall not be entitled to any changes in the shares of the Company, but the Corporation shall not be entitled to any

all of the above facts are found to have been stated to have been opened in the name of the State Party. In full view of all of the above facts, the State Party 25,000 shares of the Company of this case from the State Party 25,00 shares of the Company of this case

5,00 shares of the Company of this case are transferred to the Plaintiff by the head of the Tong and the head of the Tong.

For example, it is sufficiently recognized that the Plaintiff held title trust with 30,000 shares of the instant company

The plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

2) (2) Determination on the assertion

A) “Presumption of deemed donation of title trust property” as stipulated in Article 41-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

The legislative intent of the provision on title trust is to effectively prevent tax avoidance acts using the title trust system.

In the purport that the tax justice is realized, it is recognized as an exception to the substance over form principle.

Therefore, if it is recognized that the title trust was made for another reason, not for the purpose of tax avoidance, and only the reduction of minor taxes incidental to such title trust, it cannot be readily concluded that such title trust had the purpose of tax avoidance. However, in light of the legislative intent as seen above, only if the purpose of tax avoidance is not included in the title trust, the rate of deemed donation by applying the proviso of the above provision cannot be determined, and 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 an intention of tax avoidance. The burden of proving that there was no purpose of tax avoidance in this case is against the person who asserts it (see Supreme Court Decisions 2007Du1931, Apr. 9, 2009; 2007Du17175, Sept. 8, 2011). 201. If the title holder bears the burden of proving that there was no objective of tax avoidance and that there was no objective and objective purpose of tax avoidance in the title trust or in the future, 2014.

B) The fact that the Plaintiff operates the instant company is not a dispute between the parties; and

According to Gap evidence Nos. 6 and 9, the damageB was investigated by fraud, etc. on November 201.

28. The departure from China was made and detained on March 2012, and it was made on November 1, 2012.

The fact that he was sentenced to punishment can be recognized, but the BaB merely based on the above fact of recognition is the plaintiff.

of this case’s shares of 30,000 shares of the company of this case, which are not superior to tax avoidance;

It is found that there was no tax to be avoided at the time of title trust or in the future.

In short, there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Rather, according to the facts of recognition as seen earlier, the lossB

The Plaintiff was able to avoid dividend income tax and global income tax by title trust with 30,000 shares of the instant company’s stocks. The Plaintiff completed the transfer of ownership to its parent and became a major shareholder of the instant company and became able to operate the instant company. As such, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff received 30,000 shares of the instant company, in substance, by taking the method of transfer of ownership from the headA, etc., the gift tax could not be paid. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was able to avoid the application of the gift tax reduction rate. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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

section 3.