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

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant revoked each disposition of the gift tax of 2004, the gift tax of 2006, the gift tax of 2006, and the gift tax of 2008 (the "OOO of the gift tax of 2006" shall be deemed to be the clerical error of the "OO of the gift tax of 2006" among the claims for the disposition(the "OO of the gift tax of 2006" shall be deemed to be the clerical error of the "OO of the gift tax of 206").

A. BB Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “BB”) is a company established on April 27, 2004 as capital OOO (issuance shares 20,000 per share and par value OO) for the purpose of automobile parts manufacturing business, etc., and thisCC is a representative director of BB and a shareholder of BB who actually has been operating the company.

B. BB conducted capital increase several times after its establishment, and during which the shares of BB, registered in the name of the Plaintiff, increased as follows (hereinafter “instant shares” in total of 41,600 shares in BB shares in the Plaintiff’s name).

first day; and

J. F. L. L. H.

The number of shares of the plaintiff increased

equivalent increase amount of capital

Establishment

April 27, 2004

OOOO

7,000 note

Capital increase in 204

June 16, 2004

OOOO

7,000 note

OOOO

Capital increase in 206

April 4, 2006

OOOO

4,200 Shares

OOOO

April 15, 2006

OOOO

9,800 Shares

OOOO

Capital increase in 208

April 29, 2008

OOOO

13,600 Shares

OOOO

Total

40,600 note 40

OOOO

C. The Defendant: (a) deemed that thisCC, the actual owner of the instant shares, entrusted this in the name of the Plaintiff; and (b) determined and notified, on September 12, 2012, the Plaintiff, pursuant to Article 45-2 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9916, Jan. 1, 2010) based on the documents, etc. related to the shareholders, etc. submitted by BB at the time of filing a corporate tax return (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the instant disposition”). (c) the KRW OOO of the gift tax on the donated portion as of April 27, 2004 (including additional tax; hereinafter the same shall apply), the KRW OOO of the gift tax on the donated portion as of April 15, 2006, and the KRW OO of the gift tax on the donated portion as of April 29, 2008 ( collectively referred to as “the instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 9, Eul evidence 1, 6, Eul evidence 2-1 to 5, Eul evidence 5-1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff transferred a long-standing certificate of personal seal impression, etc. needed to establish BB upon the request of the CC, which is an employee of the BB, to DoD, and thereafter, DoD only lent a seal impression with the head of the Do and the certificate of personal seal impression at each request of DoD, and there was no fact that the Plaintiff participated in the shareholders' general meeting or conducted the company's business. Therefore, this CC merely did not unilaterally dispose of the instant shares in the Plaintiff's name without the Plaintiff's consent or consent, and thus, it cannot be deemed as a title trust subject to

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) The provision on deemed donation applies to property that requires registration, etc. for the transfer or exercise of rights, where the actual owner and the nominal owner agree or communicate and make registration, etc. in the future of the nominal owner. As such, where a registration, etc. is made unilaterally using the name of the nominal owner regardless of the intent of the nominal owner, it may not be applied. In such a case, the tax authority must establish only the fact that the actual owner is different from the nominal owner, and the verification that the registration, etc. of the nominal owner was made by the unilateral act of the actual owner regardless of the intent of the nominal owner should be made by the nominal owner (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du15

2) We examine the instant case in light of the aforementioned legal principles.

A) Comprehensively taking account of the respective statements in Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 5 and the purport of the entire pleadings in the witness DoD’s statement, the plaintiff filed a complaint on September 27, 2012 with thisCC by appropriating its name and seal imprint at the time of capital increase by BB’s capital increase and forging private documents, etc. In this regard, thisCC was prosecuted on the criminal facts that “BB’s 2008 capital increase with respect to the minutes of the temporary general shareholders’ meeting held in the name of the plaintiff at the time of capital increase by 2008 of the same year and submitted them to the court for use” and that “the minutes of the temporary shareholders’ meeting held in the name of the plaintiff at the time of capital increase by 2008 and the receipt of shares issued to the court,” and the above summary order can be acknowledged as having been finalized on March 21, 2013 by withdrawal of the request for the formal trial by CC (Article 2013Da7113, Jul. 21, 2013).

B) However, in light of the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 7, No. 13-5, and No. 4, and No. 7-1 and No. 2, the Plaintiff unilaterally acknowledged that the Plaintiff’s shares were issued under the Plaintiff’s name at the time of the issuance of the Plaintiff’s 6-year-old shares without considering the following circumstances: ① the Plaintiff was notified of the fact that the Plaintiff would have received shares under title trust on May 10, 201, that the value of the shares was donated to the Defendant at the time of the issuance of the 3-year-old shares; ② the Plaintiff did not appear to have been aware that the 3-year-old shares were issued under the Plaintiff’s name at the time of the issuance of the 3-year-old shares, and that the 2-year-old shares were not issued under the Plaintiff’s general title trust agreement and the 3-year-old shares were issued under the Plaintiff’s name of the 3-year-old shares acquisition of the 200-year-old shares.

3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.