2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Cheong-gu Office

Gift Tax of KRW 00,000,000, each of the gift tax imposed on the Plaintiffs on September 1, 2015 by the Defendant (including additional tax)

All the disposition of imposition shall be revoked.

A. On August 7, 2006, Plaintiff BB established and operated △△△△△△△△△ (hereinafter referred to as “△△△△△△△△”). Plaintiff AA is an employee working at △△△△△△△△△ from April 2009 to November 201, 201.

나. 원고 BBB는 △△△△△ 설립 당시부터 그 발행주식 30,000주(1주의 금액 10,000원)를 직원인 ◎◎◎(12,000주), ◎◎●(9,000주)와 자신의 매형인 ◎◎○(9,000주) 명의로 보유해 오다가 2011. 8. 11. ◎◎○, ◎◎● 명의의 18,000주를 자신의 명의로 변경하였고, 2012. 4. 8. ◎◎◎ 명의의 12,000주를 자신의 누나인 ◎○◎의 명의로 변경하였다.

다. 이후 원고 BBB는 2013. 3. 15. 자신 명의의 △△△△△ 주식 18,000주 중 7,800주를 직원인 CCC의 명의로 변경하고, 위 18,000주 중 1,200주와 ◎○◎ 명의주식 12,000주 중 6,300주를 합한 7,500주(이하 '이 사건 주식'이라 한다)의 명의를 직원인 원고 AAA 앞으로 변경하였으며, 그 결과 2013. 3. 15. 기준으로 △△△△△ 주식 보유 현황이 아래 표 기재와 같이 변경되었다.

라. △△△△△는 2013 사업연도 법인세 신고시 원고 AAA가 2013. 3. 15. 이 사건 주식을 양수하였다는 내용이 기재된 주식등변동상황명세서를 제출하였고, 원고 BBB 는 같은 날 원고 AAA에게 이 사건 주식 중 1,200주를 1,200만 원에 양도하였다면서 양도소득세 및 증권거래세 신고를 하였으며, ◎○◎은 같은 날 원고 AAA에게 이 사건 주식 중 6,300주를 6,300만 원에 양도하였다면서 양도소득세 및 증권거래세 신고를 하였다.

E. From June 22, 2015 to July 23, 2015, the head of the ○○○ Tax Office conducted a tax investigation on △△△△△△△△△, and as a result, the Plaintiff BB notified the Defendant of the taxation of gift tax by deeming the title trust as a gift pursuant to the main sentence of Article 45-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 13557, Dec. 15, 2015; hereinafter referred to as the “Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”) on the ground that the title trust was verified by the Plaintiff BB’s title trust with the Plaintiff A.

F. Accordingly, pursuant to Article 63(1)1 (c) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and Articles 54 through 56 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25195, Feb. 21, 2014; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”), the Defendant calculated the value of the shares of this case as KRW 00,000,000 (i.e., the appraised value per share of △△△△△△△△△ shares based on the supplementary assessment method x the number of shares x 7,500,000 (including additional taxes; hereinafter the same shall apply), and issued a notice to Plaintiff AA on September 1, 2015 by designating Plaintiff B as the taxpayer of the gift tax under Article 4(5) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act on the same day (amended by Act No. 12168, Jan. 1, 2014; hereinafter referred to as “B00”).

G. On November 23, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed an objection with the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office, but dismissed on January 7, 2016. On March 11, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but dismissed on July 14, 2016.

아. 한편 원고 BBB는 2017. 9. 28. 'CCC, DDD과 공모하여 2012. 2. 24.부터 2014. 4. 30.까지 △△△△△의 거래업체인 주식회사 ▲▲(이하 '▲▲'라 한다)에 대하여 운송비용을 허위 및 과다 청구하는 방법으로 △△△△△에 총 0,000,000,000원 상당의 재산상 이익을 취득하도록 하고 ▲▲에 같은 금액 상당의 손해를 가하였다'라는 특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(배임)의 범죄사실 등으로 징역 3년의 유죄판결을 선고받았고(서울고등법원 2017노000호), 이후 상고심(대법원 2017도00000호)에서 2018. 2. 8. 상고기각 판결이 선고되어 위 판결이 그대로 확정되었다.

자. ▲▲는 △△△△△와 원고 BBB 및 CCC, DDD을 상대로 허위 및 과다 청구에 의해 지급된 운송비 총 0,000,000,000원 상당의 손해배상금의 지급을 구하는 소(인천지방법원 부천지원 2017가합000000호)를 제기하였고, 그 소송 계속 중이던 2018. 3. 8. ▲▲의 손해배상채권액 0,000,000,000원에서 △△△△△의 ▲▲에 대한 운송비채권액 000,000,000원을 공제한 나머지 0,000,000,000원을 △△△△△와 원고 BBB 및 CCC, DDD이 공동하여 2018. 5. 31.까지 ▲▲에 지급하기로 하는 내용의 화해권고결정이 확정되었다.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3 through 6, Eul evidence 1, 3 through 9 (each number is included; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

1) Although Plaintiff BB merely held a title trust to Plaintiff AB with respect to the instant shares, the instant disposition that imposed gift tax on the Plaintiffs is unlawful.

2) Plaintiff BB was entrusted only to Plaintiff AB with the title of the instant shares, and there was no intent of tax avoidance. Plaintiff AB was entrusted with the title of the instant shares upon Plaintiff BB’s request and did not have any intent of tax avoidance. Therefore, it is unlawful that the Defendant issued the instant disposition in accordance with Article 45-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act regarding the donation of the instant shares.

3) 설령 이 사건 주식의 증여가 상속세및증여세법 제45조의2 제1항에 따른 증여세 과세대상에 해당하더라도, 피고는 △△△△△의 2010년부터 2012년까지의 각 연도별 사업소득을 기초로 산정한 순손익액을 기준으로 이 사건 주식의 가치를 평가하여 과세표준을 정한 다음 이 사건 처분을 하였는데, 관련 형사사건에서 △△△△△가 2012. 2. 24.부터 2014. 4. 30.까지 허위ㆍ과다청구에 의하여 ▲▲로부터 총 0,000,000,000원의 운송료를 지급받은 것으로 인정되었으므로, △△△△△가 2012년에 허위ㆍ과다청구에 의하여 ▲▲로부터 지급받은 운송료 0,000,000,000원을 △△△△△의 2012 사업연도 소득금액에서 제외한 후 이를 기초로 다시 이 사건 주식의 가치를 평가하여 과세표준을 정하여야 하는바, 이 사건 처분은 잘못된 과세표준에 기초한 것이어서 위법하다.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Determination on the first argument

As seen above, the instant disposition did not impose gift tax on Plaintiff BB on the ground that Plaintiff BB actually donated the instant shares to Plaintiff AA, but imposed gift tax on Plaintiff BB by deeming the instant shares to be a gift under the main sentence of Article 45-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and imposing gift tax on the instant shares as a gift. Accordingly, this part of the Plaintiffs’ assertion on a different premise is without merit without further review.

2) Determination on the second argument

A) The legislative purport of Article 45-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is to recognize an exception to the substance over form principle with the purport of effectively preventing the act of tax avoidance using the title trust system and realizing the tax justice. As such, the proviso of the same Article can be applied only where the purpose of tax avoidance is not included in the purpose of title trust. In such a case, the burden of proving that there was no purpose of tax avoidance is against the nominal owner who asserts it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 99Du2192, Jul. 23, 199; 2003Du13649, Dec. 23, 2004). Therefore, with respect to the absence of the purpose of tax avoidance, it may be proven by the method of proving that there was no other purpose than the purpose of tax avoidance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Du7733, May 12, 2006).

B) In light of the following circumstances, considering the facts acknowledged as above, Gap evidence Nos. 2, Eul evidence Nos. 2, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 8, and 10 and the overall purport of pleadings, it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs alone did not have any purpose of tax avoidance with respect to the title trust of the shares of this case, and there is no other evidence to recognize otherwise, and the application of the provision on deemed donation does not exclude Plaintiff AA, a title trustee, from the application of the provision on deemed donation on the ground that there was no purpose of tax avoidance. Accordingly, this part

① On March 15, 2013, the Plaintiffs stated that “Plaintiff BB” in the written objection filed in the course of raising an objection against the instant disposition stated that the title of the instant shares was merely trusted to Plaintiff AA in order to avoid disadvantages under the tax law that would have been received as an oligopolistic shareholder and reduce excessive comprehensive income tax by lowering the share ownership ratio, and that the Plaintiffs voluntarily held that the instant shares were held in title trust for the purpose of tax avoidance.

② 실제로 원고 BBB가 2013. 3. 15. 자기 명의 주식 18,000주 중 7,800주를 CCC에게 명의신탁하고, 위 18,000주 중 1,200주와 ◎○◎ 명의 주식 6,300주를 합한 이 사건 주식 7,500주를 원고 AAA에게 명의신탁 함으로써 주주명부상 △△△△△의 총 발행주식 30,000주 중 9,000주(30%)를 원고 BBB가, 5,700주(19%)를 ◎○◎이, 7,500주(25%)를 원고 AAA가, 7,800주(26%)를 CCC이 각 보유한 것으로 되었다. 그 결과 원고 BBB와 그 특수관계인인 ◎○◎ 명의의 주식 합계가 △△△△△의 발행주식 총수의 49%(= 30% + 19%)에 불과하게 되어 원고 BBB는 국세기본법 제39조 제2호에 따른 과점주주의 2차 납세의무를 부담하지 않게 되었다.

③ The surplus of the △△△△△ in 2013 was KRW 0,00,00,000. This seems to be likely to be distributed to shareholders in the future. The Plaintiff BB had the right to apply the lower tax rate even if the future dividend income accrues by title trust with Plaintiff AA, thereby making the instant shares available for the application of the lower tax rate.

④ Plaintiff BB stated that the instant shares were held in title trust to give a sense of duty and motive to the employees at the time of the tax investigation. However, Plaintiff BB did not seem to have been given a sense of duty and motive on the ground that Plaintiff BB owned the instant shares and entrusted the instant shares to Plaintiff AA only in its name. Plaintiff AB also prepared and delivered a letter of intent to waive the instant shares when Plaintiff BB withdraws from △△△△△△△△△△△, or upon request from the company. The reasons for the said title trust stated by Plaintiff BB are difficult to accept.

⑤ The Plaintiffs did not present objective and acceptable evidence to the effect that the title trust of the instant shares had a clear objective of tax avoidance and that there was no tax avoidance at the time of the title trust or there was no tax avoidance in the future.

3) Judgment on the third argument

A) Article 60(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "the value of an asset on which the inheritance tax or gift tax is levied under this Act shall be based on the market price as of the date of commencing the inheritance or the date of donation (hereinafter referred to as "date of appraisal")." Article 54(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "non-listed stocks shall be the weighted average value per share, calculated by dividing the weighted average amount of net profit and loss for the preceding three years by the interest rate determined and publicly notified by the Minister of Strategy and Finance in consideration of the distribution rate of bonds with the maturity of three years, in which the financial institution guarantees the average amount of net profit and loss for the preceding three years, and the net asset value per share shall be the weighted average value per share of three and two years, respectively." In addition, Article 55(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "the net asset value per share shall be the value calculated by dividing the net asset value of the relevant corporation by the total number of stocks generated from the date of commencing the inheritance."

나) 살피건대, 위 인정사실 및 변론 전체의 취지에 의하여 인정되는 아래와 같은 사정들에 비추어 보면, 비상장주식인 이 사건 주식의 가액을 상속세및증여세법 제63조 제1항 제1호 다목 및 상속세및증여세법 시행령 제54조 제1항에서 정한 보충적 평가방법에 의하여 평가할 때 그 기초가 되는 평가기준일(2013. 3. 15.) 이전 3년간(2010년부터 2012년까지)의 순손익액에서 △△△△△가 2012년에 허위・과대청구에 의하여 ▲▲로부터 지급받은 운송료를 제외하여야 한다고 볼 수 없으므로, 이와 다른 전제에 선 원고들의 이 부분 주장은 이유 없다.

(1) The legislative purport of imposing gift tax on the profits earned by the other party to a transaction due to a deemed donation of unlisted stocks is to cope with an abnormal donation and promote the fairness of taxation. As such, the assessment of the market value, which serves as the basis for calculating the value of donated stocks, shall be very important, and the market value, which serves as the basis for calculating the value of donated property, shall appropriately reflect the objective exchange value of donated property as of the date of donation. Meanwhile, setting the time limit for market price or market price calculation under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act by setting the standard date of appraisal as the date

② As one of the methods of calculating the market price of unlisted stocks, the statutory text stipulating the supplementary evaluation method may not result in a change of the market price by interpreting other legal principles or provisions. In particular, in the case of stocks, the standard market price is very important factor in calculating the market price of unlisted stocks in accordance with the supplementary evaluation method under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. The purpose of the provision seems to be that the standard market price should not be easily changed or reflected in the circumstances after the evaluation date.

③ In a case where: (a) a corporate tax is imposed on a certain right once determined in accordance with the principle of confirmation of right by recognizing a tax liability on the premise that a future profit is generated; and (b) a tax liability already incurred on the premise that such profit is realized is lost; and (c) a tax base adjustment based on such ex post facto causes may be deemed necessary as a result of the loss of a premise for the realization of such profit. However, in the case of gift tax on the stocks of this case, the gift tax on the stocks of this case shall be a taxation on the value of stocks at that time, i.e., the gains

④ 이 사건 주식의 가액을 보충적 평가방법에 의하여 평가할 때 1주당 최근 3년간(2010년부터 2012년)의 순손익액을 기초로 산정하는데, 이 순손익액은 상속세및증여세법 시행령 제56조 제4항에 따라 2010년부터 2012년까지의 각 사업연도소득(그 사업연도에 속하는 익금의 총액에서 그 사업연도에 속하는 손금의 총액을 공제한 금액이다)을 기초로 산정한다. 그런데 법인세법 제40조는 내국법인의 각 사업연도의 익금과 손금의 귀속사업연도는 그 익금과 손금이 확정된 날이 속하는 사업연도로 한다고 규정하고 있으므로, △△△△△가 2012년에 ▲▲로부터 받은 운송료 중 일부가 허위・과다청구에 의한 것이라고 하더라도 그것이 △△△△△에 실제로 지급된 이상 이는 △△△△△의 2012 사업연도 소득에 포함된다고 할 것이고, 관련 민사소송에서 △△△△△가 ▲▲에 대하여 운송료 허위・과다청구에 의한 손해배상채무를 부담하기로 하는 내용의 화해권고결정이 확정되었다고 하더라도, 이는 그 확정일이 속한 2018 사업연도 손금으로 반영되어야 할 것으로 보이는바, 원고들의 주장과 같이 △△△△△가 2012년에 허위・과다청구를 하여 ▲▲로부터 받은 운송료를 2012 사업연도 익금에서 제외하거나 △△△△△가 위 허위・과다청구로 인해 배상하여야 하는 손해배상금을 2012 사업연도 손금에 산입한 후 이를 기초로 이 사건 주식의 가액을 다시 산정하여야 한다고 볼 수는 없다.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed in entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.