2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and

A. On July 12, 2004, Nonparty B acquired 19,095 shares of the CCC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “CCC”) in the name of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant shares”).

B. On May 11, 2010, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the actual owner of the instant shares was ParkB and the Plaintiff was merely the title trustee; (b) applying the legal fiction of donation of title trust property under Article 45-2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (hereinafter “Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”), the Plaintiff deemed to have donated the instant shares from ParkB; and (c) imposed KRW 000 on the Plaintiff the gift tax on the instant shares (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On July 6, 2010, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed a request with the Tax Tribunal for a trial on July 6, 2010, and was dismissed on December 2 of the same year.

[Based on Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the whole purport of the pleading

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff is the wife of ParkB. The Plaintiff listens to the words of bringing seals from ParkB through words, which are the wife of ParkB, and there is only fact that the Plaintiff thought that it is necessary to affix seals and seals to the normal comprehensive construction documents registered by himself/herself as a director, and that ParkB is holding the Plaintiff’s seal. Accordingly, ParkB acquires the instant shares by taking advantage of the Plaintiff’s name, not by nominal trust, but by taking advantage of the Plaintiff’s name.

B. Even if family affairs and gamblingB held the shares of this case in title trust to the Plaintiff, they were not subject to tax avoidance, and thus, they are not deemed as gift pursuant to the proviso of Article 45-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act.

applicable if it is not a case.

C. Article 60(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that the value of the property on which the gift tax is levied shall be based on the market price as of the date of donation. Nevertheless, the defendant shall increase the amount based on the value calculated according to the supplementary method of assessment under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and the Enforcement Decree thereof, whose current market

Since the tax was imposed, the disposition of this case is illegal.

(d)the imposition of gift tax on the basis of values calculated by household and supplementary assessment methods;

Even if legal provisions are applicable, the Defendant did not deduct the amount of taxes and public charges of 2001 on the net loss calculation statement while evaluating the value of unlisted stocks for the instant disposition, and the amount of the income for each business year and the amount of the corporate tax are inconsistent with the details of the Plaintiff’s report.

3. Relevant statutes;

Attached Form 3 is as listed in the "relevant Acts and subordinate statutes".

4. Determination

A. Determination on the argument of the above 2-A

(1) The legal fiction of donation of title trust property under Article 45-2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act applies to a case where the actual owner and the nominal owner make a registration or transfer of title in the name of the nominal owner by agreement or communication with respect to the property which requires a transfer or transfer of title, etc., and where the actual owner and the nominal owner unilaterally make a registration or transfer of title by using the nominal owner’s name regardless of the intent of the nominal owner, it may not be applied. In this case, the tax authority must prove only the fact that the actual owner is different from the nominal owner, and the fact that the registration or transfer of title, etc. was made by the unilateral act of the actual owner regardless of the intent of the nominal owner, must be proved by the nominal owner who asserts it (see Supreme Court Decisions 88Nu27, Oct. 11, 198; 2004;

See Supreme Court Decision 27009.

(2) As seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that ParkB had purchased the instant shares under the name of the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance. Furthermore, the following circumstances, i.e., (i) the address of ParkBB and the normal general construction operated by ParkBB, and (ii) the Plaintiff was a director of ParkB’s normal construction operated by ParkB, and (iii) the Plaintiff was asked ParkB to use the seal in AA comprehensive construction document without making anywhere to use the seal, and (iv) it is not easy to obtain the seal, and (iii) it was argued that ParkB acquired the instant shares with the funds of the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff did not appear in the name of the Plaintiff, i.e., the Plaintiff purchased the instant shares under the name of 1B by taking into account the following circumstances, i., the Plaintiff’s wrongful use of the shares in the name of the Plaintiff, i.e., the Plaintiff’s request for the tax Tribunal, and the Plaintiff’s request for the testimony in the name of 201B.

(3) The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

B. Determination as to the assertion of the above 2-B

(1) The legislative intent of Article 45-2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides for exceptions to the substance over form principle to the effect that the act of tax avoidance using the title trust system is effectively prevented, thereby realizing the tax justice. In light of these legislative intent, only if the purpose of the title trust is not included in the purpose of tax avoidance, the rate of deemed donation cannot be applied by applying the proviso of the above provision, and if it is deemed that there was the intention of tax avoidance in addition to the other main purpose, the burden of proving that there was no purpose of tax avoidance, and that there was no purpose of tax avoidance is the person who asserts it (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du17175, Sept. 8, 201).

(2) It is insufficient to find that the title trust of the instant shares was not aimed at tax evasion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, solely based on the health stand, the testimony of ParkB, and the result of the party personal examination of the Plaintiff.

(3) The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

C. Determination as to the above 2-C. argument

(1) Article 60(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "the value of an asset on which a gift tax is levied under this Act shall be the market price as of the date of donation (hereinafter referred to as "the evaluation base date"), and Article 60(2) of the same Act provides that "the market price under paragraph (1) shall be the value generally deemed to be established when a transaction is made freely between many and unspecified persons, and shall include the expropriation price, public sale price, appraisal price, and appraisal price, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, and accordingly, Article 49(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "the market price shall be recognized as the market price as prescribed by Presidential Decree under Article 60(2) of the same Act in the case of an asset donated by a sale, appraisal, expropriation, auction or public sale within three months before or after the evaluation base date, and Article 60(3) of the same Act provides that "if it is difficult to calculate the market price in the application of paragraph (1), the value evaluated as the market price in accordance with Articles 61 through 65 and 65.

(2) According to the health stand, Eul's evidence Nos. 6 evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and the overall purport of the arguments as to the instant case, it can be acknowledged that the Defendant calculated the value per share of the instant shares by using the unlisted stock appraisal method under Article 60 (3) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and Articles 54 through 56 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which are supplementary valuation methods, on the grounds that the purchase, appraisal, expropriation, auction, or public sale was not conducted during the period of not more than 3 months before or after July 12, 2004

(3) If so, the defendant did not seem to have erred in assessing the value of the shares of this case, and this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

D. Determination as to the assertion of the above 2-D

(1) According to the statements in Gap evidence 7-1 and Eul evidence 6-2, and the plaintiff's argument that "tax amount in excess of the fixed number of tax amount under each tax law is 000 won (=00 won +00 won) when the defendant evaluates the value of the shares in this case, it can be recognized that "the tax amount in excess of the fixed number of tax amount under each tax law" is calculated in the tax settlement statement of the DD Technical Group Co., Ltd. (CCC telegraph) in 2001 submitted by the plaintiff, and 00 won is calculated in the column of "tax amount in excess of the tax amount", and this part of the plaintiff's argument is without merit.

(2) In addition, there is no evidence to support the Plaintiff’s assertion that the amount of income for each business year and the amount of corporate tax imposed are inconsistent with the Plaintiff’s content, and this part of the Plaintiff’

5. Conclusion

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