2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

2. Grounds for the court’s reasoning as to this part of the disposition of this case is legitimate, with reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance.

C. The legislative intent of Article 41-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6780, Dec. 18, 2002; hereinafter the same) is to recognize 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 using the title trust system, and thus, if the title trust is recognized as having been made for any reason other than the tax avoidance purpose and the reduction of minor taxes incidental to the title trust is merely a result of the reduction of taxes incidental to the title trust, it cannot be readily concluded that there was a tax avoidance purpose in such title trust.

(2) In light of the legislative intent as seen above, a person who is deemed to have the intent of tax avoidance cannot be deemed to have the intent of tax avoidance by applying the proviso of the above provision only when the purpose of title trust is not included in the purpose of tax avoidance. Thus, inasmuch as the purpose of title trust is not included in the purpose of tax avoidance, a person who is deemed to have the intent of tax avoidance cannot be deemed to have the intention of tax avoidance.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Nu1532, Jun. 26, 1998; 2003Du13649, Dec. 23, 2004). In addition, whether there was an intention of tax evasion or not should be determined at the time of title trust, and whether there was a tax evasion or not thereafter.