2. ○ director of the tax office.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

A. On December 15, 1965, ○○○, the Plaintiff’s reference, established ○○ Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”).

B. The 2,202,540 shares issued by the company of this case (the 'the shares' of this case was 9.18% of the total number of shares issued by the company of this case; hereinafter 'the shares' of this case) was registered in the name of R○○○ Investment Limited (hereinafter 'RI'), which is a corporation located in Hong Kong. The total 2 shares issued by RI were each one share under C○○ S○ S○○ Limited (hereinafter 'CS') and R○○ S○○ Limited (hereinafter 'RS') (hereinafter 'the above '○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 2.7% of the shares issued by the company of this case', '6% of the shares issued by the company of this case', '60% of the shares issued by the company of this case' and 70% of the shares issued by the '○○○○○ 27.17.27.

An agreement on division of inherited property

On March 2, 2007, with respect to inheritance of the property owned by the decedent, which was commenced due to the death of the decedent ○○○○○○, the co-inheritors Kim○, ParkBB, and the plaintiff, with respect to the division of the inherited property, shall make a final agreement as to the division of the inherited property, and shall prepare three copies of the agreement in order to verify such agreement, signed and sealed as follows.

(Attached Form)

Details of division of inherited property

1. Inherited property divided to the inheritor Kim ○-○; and

(1) ○○○-si ○○-dong 456 ○ apartment 80 Dong 703

(2) ○○-si ○○-dong 15-11 site and ground buildings

(3) 48,00 shares issued by ○○ Product Distribution Corporation

(4) Deposit 1,735,822,606 at ○○ Central Branch of ○○ Bank (Account Number omitted; hereinafter the same shall apply)

(5) ○ Bank ○○ Branch Deposit 4,353,934 won

(6) ○ Bank ○○ Branch Deposit 63,596,431 won

(7) Loans extended to ○○ Unemployment KRW 685,289,940

2. Inherited property divided to the inheritor B.

○○ Co., Ltd. 1,000 shares

3. Inherited property divided to the plaintiff by inheritor.

(1) ○○do ○○○○-si ○○○○-do 37-1 Forest land of 57,417 square meters

(2) ○○do ○○○-si ○○○○-do 11,351 square meters of forests and fields located 37-6 ○○-do ○○-do

(3) 161,450 shares issued by ○ Industry Corporation

(4) 123,00 shares issued by ○○ Product Distribution Corporation

(5) 15,00 shares issued by ○○ Unemployment Co., Ltd.

“(6) Golf membership in ○○○○○○○○-dong located in ○○○○○-dong,” “(7) golf membership in ○○○○-dong located in ○○○○○○-dong,” “(8) golf membership in ○○○○-dong located in ○○○○○○-dong,” “(8) golf membership in ○○○-dong located in ○○○○○○-dong,” and “4. In addition to the above inherited property, active property is inherited according to the proportion of the decedent’s active property or negative property (debt, etc.) after the agreement on the division of inherited property (hereinafter in addition to the above inherited property). In addition, active property is inherited according to the proportion of the Plaintiff: ○○○○-dong, ○○○-dong, ○○-dong (hereinafter in this case, referred to as “instant agreement ratio”), and a small property is to be inherited according to the proportion of Kim○-A =1:1 (in the case of debts, the heir bears a statutory share in accordance with statutory inheritance, but the heir bears.).

D. On September 14, 2010, the network Kim ○ and ParkB prepared and delivered to the Plaintiff a certificate of transfer of rights (hereinafter “instant certificate of transfer of rights”) as follows.

All legitimate rights, interests, and benefits included in two shares issued by RI are two separate beneficiaries, each of which was made on June 23, 1999.

Under the Korean law, the gain of the above shares is divided into three categories. The deceased Kim○, the wife of the deceased Park○○, has 50% of them, and the heir GB has 0.25% of them (hereinafter referred to as "the principal's shares"), and the principal (laver, Ge-, ParkB) (hereinafter referred to as "GB") intends to transfer all the profits and benefits of the principal's shares to He (Plaintiff) and all the kinds of rights incidental thereto.

If this document and attached contract is signed as a transferee and sent to the author, I would like to waive the deed of trust so that the certificate of trust can be cancelled and replaced for you with the seal of approval on the contract as required by Hong Kong.

(e)S andS, the nominal owner of 2 weeks of issued and outstanding shares, were made on November 9, 2010, a trust declaration as follows (hereinafter referred to as the “instant trust declaration”):

There are the following facts:

1. On June 23, 199, the trustee under the Trust Declaration (referring to CS and RS) made a declaration that the trustee holds the shares (referring to two shares issued in the name of CS and S; hereinafter referred to as “this shares”) specified and mentioned in the separate list in the trust for Park ○.

2. Park ○-○ died on February 20, 207.

3.The authority of Park ○-○ on the shares in this case under the laws of the Republic of Korea shall be separated from his own possession to three beneficiaries, and shall be transferred in proportion to or less shares.

3.1.For Kim ○, - One and one-half equity ratio (hereinafter referred to as “KBS ratio”).

3.2. SheB - 1/3 equity (hereinafter referred to as “HJP equity interest”)

3.3. ParkA - 1/3 Equity (hereinafter referred to as “JHP Equity Holdings”).

4. Each Kim○ and ParkB transferred, by means of the instant transfer certificates of rights on September 14, 2010, each of the Kim○ and ParkB transferred to ParkB the full rights and powers with respect to the KBS ratio and HJP equity, and their beneficiaries’ benefits.

5. The above assignment was legally sealed and it was judged by S○○ D○○○○ Office in Hong Kong.

This instrument provides that the following is proved:

1.The shares of this case existing in the books of the Company and the shares of this case registered in the name of the Trustee are not belonging to the Trustee and shall belong to the Beneficiary, and the Trustee shall have any shares of this case, all dividends, interest, and all shares, dividends, interest, and all shares, dividends, interest and any other rights arising, or arising, or payable under the Trust or in the name of the Beneficiary.

2. The trustee further agrees:

(a) The method of transferring, paying, and dealing with all dividends, interest, and other rights to the shares and the shares of this case shall be subject to the direction of the beneficiary from time to time.

(b) If the beneficiary requests that the beneficiary be present at the general meeting of shareholders of the company and that the beneficiary be entitled to vote at that time, the trustee shall sign the power of attorney at the beneficiary’s request and the beneficiary’s cost-sharing.

(c) The trustee shall be subject to the direction of the beneficiary when attending and exercising voting rights at a meeting of shareholders entitled to exercise as a registered shareholder of this case.

(d) No person shall exercise voting rights to the shares of this case in a manner other than that directed by the beneficiary, and in the absence of instructions from the beneficiary, the trustee shall exercise its discretion under the true belief that the best interest of the beneficiary is for the beneficiary.

F. As a result of conducting a tax investigation related to ○○ inheritance tax from May 30, 2014 to August 31, 2014, the head of ○○○ Regional Tax Office: (a) shares of this case at the time of reporting the inheritance tax (based on the commencement date of inheritance)

11,528,094,360 won and net gambling ○○○○○○○ Hong Kong Branch Account (hereinafter referred to as “the Hong Kong Account”) deposited in the name of TRI,265,650 U.S. dollars 12,265,650 (as of the date of commencement of inheritance, 11,508,859,762 won; hereinafter referred to as “the instant deposit”); and 64.3 km (as of the date of commencement of inheritance, 1,255,616,107 won as of the date of commencement of inheritance; hereinafter referred to as “○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○”). Accordingly, on December 1, 2014, the head of ○○○○○○○○○○ District Tax Office imposed the gift tax on the Plaintiff’s domicile, ○○○○○○○ on the ground that each of the instant notice of imposition of the gift tax belongs to the Plaintiff’s 206407.

1) In applying Article 45-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11609, Jan. 1, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply), Defendant ○○○○○○○○ rendered a decision and notification on KRW 1,485,986,490 on December 23, 201, on the ground that he/she held the title trust of the instant shares to the RI before the death of the deceased○○○○○○○○○○○, by applying Article 45-2(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 12848, Dec. 1, 2014; hereinafter the same shall apply).

2) The director of the tax office on January 1, 2009, notwithstanding the Plaintiff’s succession of the part of the instant shares at the instant consultation ratio, the following day after the end of the next year on which the date of acquisition of ownership falls.

On December 1, 2014, the second main text of Article 45-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act was applied to the Plaintiff on December 1, 201, and the Plaintiff issued a notice of KRW 4,660,213,70 of the gift tax reverted to the Plaintiff in 209 (hereinafter “instant second disposition”).

3) The head of the competent tax office decided and notified the net Kim○○ on December 1, 2014 by applying the second part of the main text of Article 45-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act to determine and notify the gift tax of KRW 3,954,986,470 on December 23, 201, on the ground that the net Kim○○ did not transfer the portion according to the instant agreed ratio to the instant shares under the name of the deceased Kim○○, even though the ownership date falls on January 1, 2009, on the ground that the net Kim○○ did not transfer the ownership of the instant shares to the deceased Kim○○ by January 1, 2009, the head of the competent tax office notified the Plaintiff of the succession of tax liability due to inheritance on the ground of Article 24 of the Framework Act on National Taxes (hereinafter “third disposition

4) The head of the ○○○○ Tax Office jointly inherited the instant shares, deposits, and pelbs in accordance with the instant consultation ratio, and decided and notified the Plaintiff on December 1, 2014, on the ground that: (a) on September 14, 2010, the ○○○○○○ and Gabs donated his/her own share in the instant shares, deposits, and pelbs to the Plaintiff pursuant to the instant transfer certificate; and (b) on the ground that (c) on December 1, 2014, the Plaintiff rendered a decision and notification on KRW 18,94,706,330 (including the penalty tax on illegal filing, KRW 4,158,321,848) of the gift tax for 2010 (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition 4”).

5) On September 14, 2010, Defendant ○○○ Tax Office: (a) received the gift from the deceased Kim○, and ParkB on the share of the instant two persons according to the instant agreement; (b) on the ground that the Plaintiff did not transfer the ownership of the shares to the Plaintiff by January 1, 2012 on the date following the end of the year following the day on which the date of acquisition falls; (c) applied the main text of Article 45-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act by applying the main text of Article 45-2(1) to the Plaintiff on December 1, 2014, and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 11,16,92,850 of gift tax attributed to year 2012 (hereinafter “instant disposition 5”).

G. On February 16, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on February 16, 2015, but was dismissed on November 9, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 8, 12, 34 evidence, Eul evidence 1 to 5 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Relevant statutes;

Attached Form 2 is as shown in the relevant statutes.

3. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff's sole inheritance of the shares and deposits of this case (the grounds for imposition of dispositions of this case No. 3 through No. 5)

The shares and deposits of this case are not "property additionally revealed after the agreement on division of inherited property," as stipulated in Paragraph (4) of this case, but property prior to the commencement date of the inheritance by the deceased Park ○○’s co-inheritors, and the co-inheritors already divided the shares and deposits of this case into the Plaintiff’s sole inheritance before the agreement on division of this case. Therefore, each disposition of this case 5 within the third place under the premise that co-inheritors jointly inherited the shares and deposits of this case according to the agreement on division of this case is unlawful.

B. The position of the trustee of the RTI who is a PTI, and the denial of the application of the proviso of Article 4(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (the grounds for appeal Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5 of this case)

RTI is a Pucom with no substance, and therefore cannot be the subject of the agreement on title trust because it cannot be the subject of rights and duties or legal acts. The legal doctrine that separating ownership from the domestic and external perspective is premised on the existence of a separate decision made by the truster and the trustee. Thus, if the truster cannot always have the same intent by entirely controlling the intent of the trustee, it does not constitute a title trust. Furthermore, the proviso of Article 4(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "where a profit-making corporation, the title holder of which is the gift tax pursuant to Article 45-2, is exempted from the gift tax, is obliged to pay the gift tax, the actual owner shall be liable to pay the gift tax." Accordingly, the term "exemption" is a natural premise that the liability to pay gift tax is established under the concept. Therefore, since RI cannot be the subject of the first liability to pay the gift tax, it does not meet the requirements of Article 4(1) proviso of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. Therefore, each of the instant tax dispositions under the premise that RI shares are shares of this case.

C. Restrictions on the application of the main sentence of Article 45-2 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (a dispute No. 3: this issue)

The gift tax had already been levied on the ground that the deceased ○○○ was in title trust of the instant shares with the RTI, but the Plaintiff and the deceased ○○○, the heir of which did not transfer the title to the instant shares, or on the ground that the Plaintiff did not transfer the title to the instant shares despite having received the instant shares from the deceased ○○ and ParkB, the heir of which was the heir, the gift tax again imposed on the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff did not transfer the title to the said shares, was not in compliance with the requirements of Article 45-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and thus,

D. Denial of validity of the taxation disposition against the deceased (the grounds for illegality of the taxation disposition Nos. 1 and 3 of this case)

Since a taxation disposition against a deceased person is null and void as a serious defect is apparent and void as a matter of course, each disposition of taxation 1 and 3 against the deceased ○○ and the deceased ○○○○ is null and void. Based on this, the notice of succession to tax liability against the Plaintiff is also null and void.

E. Denial of the application of penalty tax on no filing of a non-declaration (the grounds for preliminary illegality in the disposition No. 4 of this case)

Even if the Plaintiff, on September 14, 2010, donated one’s own shares among the instant shares, deposits, and pelbs inherited by the deceased Kim ○ and ParkB from the deceased ○○○, to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff merely failed to fulfill the duty to report gift tax, and thus, cannot be subject to the penalty tax for non-declaration. Nevertheless, the portion exceeding the penalty tax for non-declaration in the instant disposition for non-declaration, unlike the premise, is unlawful.

4. Judgment on the issues 1

(a) Facts of recognition;

1) 망 박○○는 2002. 4. 8. 대리인인 김CC 변호사를 통해 홍콩 소재 스○○,웡 ○○ 라○○ 법률사무소)(S○○, W○○ & L○○, 이하 '스○○ 법률사무소'라 한다)의 앵○○ 변호사에게 원고를 RTI의 이 사건 홍콩계좌의 운영권한자로 추가 지정해주도록 요청하는 한편, 2002. 4. 18. 비○○ 홍콩지점장 ○○(Ms. ○○)에게 위 사안에 관하여 앵○○ 변호사와 연락하라고 통지하였다.

3) The S○○ legal office is a shareholder of SS and RS who has put two stocks issued by TRI in trust. The number of members of the S○○ legal office, the number of directors of SS, and the number of directors of SS is equal to 5 persons, such as poppy○, etc., and the directors of TRI are b○○○ (S○○ Limited), te○○ (T○○) and te○○ (T○○) (limited). Since the two directors of this two companies are the same as 5 persons such as poppy○, etc., the S○ legal office seems to have managed and operated all the affairs of TRI in Hong Kong upon the entrustment of ○○○.

2) On April 18, 2002, RI held a board of directors on April 18, 2002 to operate the instant Hong Kong account to the Plaintiff.

서명하는 단독의 무제한적 권한을 부여하는 한편, 이러한 내용을 비○○ 은행에 고지한다'는 내용의 결의를 하였고, 스○○ 법률사무소는 2002. 4. 19. ○○쿡에게 위 RTI 이사회결의서를 송부한 뒤, 2002. 4. 25. 김CC 변호사에게 '비○○의 보○○ 웡(B○○e Wong)으로부터 원고의 서명을 포함하는 다른 형태의 이사회결의서를 작성해 줄 것을 요청받았는데 위 요청에 따라 원고의 서명이 있는 서식을 완성하여 실행하면 되는 것인지 확인해달라'고 문의하였고, 김CC 변호사는 2002. 4. 25. 포시스 변호사에게 '비○○에서 요청된 바에 따라 이사회 결의 사항을 실행, 진척시켜 달라'고 답변하였으며, 이에 TM○○ 법률사무소는 2002. 4. 26. ○○쿡에게 원고의 서명이 포함된 RTI 이사회결의서를 다시 송부하였다.

3) On March 12, 2004, the representative director of the company of this case who entered the company of this case on March 12, 2004

On March 3, 2006, the company was appointed as the president of the company and succeeded to the management right of the company from GambO, who was appointed as the president of the company on March 3, 2006.

4) On July 17, 2006, August 31, 2006, November 27, 2006, Nov. 27, 2006, and January 16, 2007, the Plaintiff remitted USD 500,000,000,00 from the Hong Kong account of this case to the net Park ○’s U.S. account.

5) After the deceased on February 20, 2007, the deceased KimCC attorney-at-law died on July 18, 2007, on the part of the deceased on February 20, 2007, the deceased on February 20, 2007. The deceased on February 20, 2007, followed procedures necessary to change the registered matters of RTI. The status is succeeded by the Plaintiff, who is an son of the deceased ○○○.

6) Main contents of the written questioning of the Plaintiff on suspicion of violation

(1)

After the death of the president of LambO, the beneficial owner of RTI was not immediately changed.

In February 2007, Nitber decided that RTI will own and manage all after the death of Nitber because RTI was related to the management of the company by making Nitius, NitB, ParkB, at a local hospital of the United States in the United States. After returning to Korea, NitI began to conduct the entire process of reporting and investigating domestic inheritance tax and thereafter changed the name of RTI.

At the time of text, Kim○-○ and ParkB-B shall have been left in writing or documentary evidence on matters consulted with the Kim○-○ and ParkB.

The answer family members were arranged only verbally, and the matter was commenced in Hong Kong from 2009 as agreed.

(A) The record of the preparation of this document and the reasons therefor are required.

No. 2007 is a document pertaining to the transfer of rights completed in 2010 by requesting the Hong Kong Attorney in 2009 according to the terms and conditions agreed with the State Party at the time of the State Party’s death.

(Presentation of Trust Declaration of this case) The details and purpose of this document must be specified.

The answer is the right of transfer completed in 2009 and the subsequent trust declaration made at the direction of N.B. at the time of N.N.’s death by requesting the Hong Kong Attorney in 2009 according to the terms and conditions agreed with L.B.

(2)

According to sub-items 4 of the written agreement on division of this case, Kim○-○, ParkA, and ParkB-divided property 9,500/20 of the Kim○-○, ParkB-divided property - 9,500 of the 20,402 of the 20,400 of the Ga, and ParkB-B shall succeed to the shares of 2/402 of the 20,402.

After the return, it has been agreed to inherit at the rate of inheritance in cases where a third party (Gla○○, Gea, ParkB) agreed upon after the division of the inherited property at the time of the return finds any additional property that had not been known.

The basis for such interpretation is what is, and such a phrase is anywhere in the written division agreement.

In the reply, Paragraph 4 of Article 4 of the Agreement on Division of Inherited Property, the phrase “if the active or negative property (debt, etc.) of the inheritee is additionally clarified after the consultation on division of the inherited property other than the above inherited property.” This phrase is a phrase “additional” in addition to the property already known among the inheritors. Therefore, the heir had already become aware of the existence in 202, which was before the death of ABB, and the heir was determined by the maintenance of ABB by ABB, does not constitute “the additional property” as provided in the above provision.

In order to transfer the text, it is possible under the premise that there was an initial ownership share, and it is not reasonable to deem that Ga was inherited at the time of Ga○○○○ death by Kim○, ParkB, and ParkA according to the instant agreement ratio.

No answer is that RI’s assets have already been determined by the NI’s intention to independently inherit, and that is only the content of the consent of Kim○○, ParkB, and that was possessed by Kim○○, ParkB, and ParkB. A simple statement was that RI’s entire assets were inherited to the principal due to the maintenance of RI’s life at the same time as RI’s death, and that the specific transfer procedure was made after RI’s death. As the Hong Kong attorney stated in the “certificate of transfer”, there was three persons including the heir under the laws of the Republic of Korea, and the other two persons, Kim○, Kim○, and ParkB, who were two persons, could not take the form of taking over from GB.

The inheritance share of three inheritors described in the instant trust declaration is not a legal share in inheritance, but is not a share in the instant consultations, and what is the basis for the calculation is required.

The respondent himself/herself is also aware of the basis for calculation because he/she is not involved in the process of preparing the Hong Kong attorney-at-law described such ratio on the basis of any investigation.

In light of the inheritance ratio of the instant transfer certificate, ParkB-B-B-E and Kim ○-○, 50% of the shares in the instant transfer of rights, are described as having rights to 0.25% and 50% of the shares in the instant transfer of rights. This is considerably similar to the shares in the instant consultations. We need not prepare the instant transfer of rights based on the content of the instant division agreement

I do not answer. I do not think that the content of the instant divisional agreement has not been provided to the Hong Kong attorney-at-law, and, if written by the Hong Kong attorney-at-law on their basis, I think it should be prepared at an accurate consistent rate. I do not know the circumstances in which Hong Kong attorney-at-law written on any ground.

7) Main contents of the attorney KimCC’s letter of confirmation

○ himself has been engaged in the business related to the RI established by the chairman of the LOO○ Industry in Hong Kong until now, and has exercised his voting right as an agent of RI in 2015 when the general meeting of shareholders of the ○ Industry is held by RI every year.

The fact that ○○○○○○○○’s position as the president of the LTS is succeeded by the president of the LAA, which is an infant, is the meaning of the president of the LA. The fact that ○○ industry’s management right is succeeded by the president of the LAA, and that there was no particular objection to the purport of the president of the LAA. As to the purport of ○○○○○○○, the heir was designated as the Plaintiff as the actual owner and beneficiary of the RI, it is clear that the Plaintiff agreed to both the deceased Kim○, the Plaintiff’s mother-○ and the beneficiary of the profits. Accordingly, ○○○○○○, who was aware of the status of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s position as to the RI, was notified of the fact that the Plaintiff, who was the Plaintiff, was to solely succeed

(viii) the main contents of the certificate of ParkB’s preparation;

Before the death of ○○’s father’s deceased, it was known that ○○, as well as all of his families, has been holding stocks and deposits of ○○ Industries through RTI in Hong Kong.

○○ had no meaning in the management of the company.

In the event of the death of the deceased ○○○○○○○, as well as the Gambl Kim○, the plaintiff was aware of all the property owned by the deceased ○○○ in relation to the ○ industry, which was agreed to operate the ○○ industry by being stored by the birth plaintiff, and without any objection.

Therefore, around July 2007, 2007, her mother Kim ○, her mother, and the Plaintiff requested the KimCC attorney-at-law to take a procedure because the Plaintiff would have succeeded to the right (such as stock and deposit) of TRI.

The rights (stocks, deposits, etc.) to TRI held by ○○○○○○○ was succeeded to the Plaintiff before preparing a written agreement on the division of inherited property on August 2007. Therefore, this right is not a property subject to an agreement on the division of inherited property, but is not stated in the written agreement on the division of inherited property.

8) The main contents of the Plaintiff’s legal testimony

Before the death of ○○○, it is essential that the Plaintiff agreed to succeed to the management right of ○○○, Kim○, witness, and the Plaintiff.

The answer was not a specific agreement, and the author naturally went to the study of art, so I naturally knew that children naturally followed their father and then came to the company to work.

Since the father's fluencing fluencing period from the time of his fluencing fluencing, the plaintiff thought that fluencing fencing will be a company, and I think that she is not interested in the company management because she majored in art, and that she is able

Examples of the Answer

(after death of ○○○) It is essential to say that Kim○ has a considerable stocks and deposits in Hong Kong while talking about the property of ○○○ at the place of the Plaintiff and witness.

Examples of the Answer

Since this property is necessary for the management of the ○ industry, the witness was aware of the fact that it is not necessary for the plaintiff to use the ○○ industry.

Examples of the Answer

It is necessary to think that the witness was the plaintiff on the property located in Hong Kong, which is related to the right of management of the ○ industry, because ○○ is not only the state of donation of considerable property before ○○○ Life, but also the right of management of ○○ Industries frequently transferred to the plaintiff even before ○○ Life.

The answer is the example.

At any time, it would have become aware of the existence of the RTI company.

Before the father return to his share of inheritance, she agreed with the mother about the assets in Hong Kong and agreed with the company's assets and agreed to be entrusted by her birth, so she is the same.

Article 4 of the letter of agreement on the division of inherited property provides that "if active property or negative property (debt, etc.) of the inheritee is additionally specified after this agreement on the division of inherited property, active property shall be inherited at the rate of Kim ○○○: GambB=9500:100:00:2, it is essential to include such phrase."

He may know about the lawyer's answer.

In preparation of a written agreement on the division of inherited property, there was a lot of why the stocks and deposits in Hong Kong were written. The part would have been written as the plaintiff and would have been put into the same part. If it is revealed that it is in a foreign country, it would have a number of problems.

The mother of this part is the same that he/she has ever fested in a direction that does not include such part.

The witness did not have any dissenting opinion that the plaintiff succeeded to the management right of the ○ Industry according to the intention of ○○○○○○, and that the ○○○○ was managed through RTI and the deposit was inherited by the plaintiff alone.

Examples of the Answer

According to the certificate of transfer of rights of this case, the witness is written as having the right of 25% of the shares of the TRI, and such content is known.

The answer is a necessary document due to the procedure and it was necessary for the wrappinger.

It is considered that there is a right of 25% of the sentence, but it is necessary to think that the person has a right to think, but there is no right.

I did not think that it is very important from the beginning because I had worked for all the births.

The letter of agreement on division of inherited property has already been prepared when the witness went to the plaza office, but it is necessary to make a letter while holding a consultation on the place.

I memory that the answer has been made.

If so, it is necessary to divide the shares into 9500:100:200: there is a need to keep the shares in the name of TRI in mind and then whether it is possible to divide the shares in that proportion if there is a problem later.In addition, it has not been possible to reveal the property in Hong Kong because it is difficult to reveal the property in Hong Kong, and it has been agreed between the successors to be the plaintiff.

The answer shall be the latter.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence 9 to 15 (including each number), Eul evidence 6 and 7, witness ParkB's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Determination

Since the agreement on the division of inherited property is a kind of contract between co-inheritors, it does not necessarily require a written agreement. It is sufficient to acknowledge that co-inheritors have agreed explicitly or implicitly on the method of division of inherited property through other evidence, and it is also possible to explicitly or implicitly agree on part of inherited property through a written agreement, and on the remainder, oral or implied agreement is also possible in principle. In light of the aforementioned legal principles, when comprehensively considering the following circumstances known by the facts acknowledged earlier and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is reasonable to deem that the network Kim-○, the plaintiff, and ParkB, the co-inheritors of the Hemb○○○○○’s co-inheritors, to have agreed on the division of the shares and deposits of this case to be inherited solely by the plaintiff. Accordingly, each disposition of taxation of this case, which is premised on the joint inheritance of the shares and deposits of this case, which are co-inheritors, is unlawful.

① The Plaintiff, a member of the company of this case, succeeded to the management right of the instant company, and had the intent to solely inherit the instant shares and deposits related to the Plaintiff, which held the shares of the instant company, to the Plaintiff, and the network Kim ○, and ParkB did not have any assertion or objection to the instant shares and deposits until now.

② Before the death of the deceased ○○○○, only the Plaintiff among co-inheritors succeeded to the management right of the instant company, and was designated as the operating authority of the Hong Kong Account in which the instant deposit was deposited.

③ From February 20, 2007, the deceased on February 20, 2007, on or around July 7, 2007, the deceased Kim○, the plaintiff, and ParkB requested the KimCC attorney-at-law who was acting on behalf of RTI to take necessary procedures as the plaintiff would have succeeded to the right (the shares, deposits, etc. in this case) of LTI to receive succession. The KimCC attorney-at-law requested to take necessary procedures. On July 18, 2007, it is reasonable to view that the status of the deceased YO attorney-at-law in the SPPO's legal office managing RTI succeeded to the status of the deceased ○○○○○, and that the plaintiff, who was the child, succeeded to the status of the deceased, and that the plaintiff would take necessary procedures to modify the registered matters of RTI, and therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff had already entered into the separate agreement on August 7, 2007.

④ Since co-inheritors already known the existence of the shares and deposits of this case before the completion of the instant protocol of partition agreement, they do not constitute 'affirmative property to be additionally indicated'. It is difficult to conclude that the shares and deposits of this case were made out of the agreement of this case 4. Paragraph 4. of the instant protocol of partition agreement with the intent to conceal the shares and deposits of this case since they were overseas borrowed-name assets of the deceased Park ○○○, and thus, they did not indicate the shares and deposits of this case. Considering that the agreement of this case was not made by the co-inheritors and the attorney-at-law prepared in advance, instead of the agreement made by the co-inheritors, it appears that the agreement of this case was made by the co-inheritors, and that the agreement of this case was prepared in advance. In addition, active property of the deceased after the agreement of division of inherited property: ○○: Kim B=900: 1090,000, the proportion of the shares of this case is insufficient to recognize that the agreement of inheritance and inheritance of the co-inheritors 1.

⑤ On September 14, 2010, the Plaintiff prepared and delivered the instant certificate of transfer of rights to the Plaintiff on the condition that the deceased Kim ○ and ParkB transferred all their shares to the Plaintiff as to two shares issued by the Plaintiff. However, there is no record in which the deceased Kim ○ and ParkB exercised their rights to the instant shares and deposits from the deceased Park ○○○ to September 14, 2010, and the share ratio stated in the instant certificate of transfer of rights is irrelevant to the agreement ratio or legal share inheritance, and there was a declaration of trust that the Plaintiff will succeed to the Plaintiff on November 9, 2010, immediately after the issuance and delivery of the instant certificate of transfer of rights. Considering that the instant certificate of transfer of rights is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff submitted the instant certificate of transfer of rights to the Plaintiff in the form of the donation and the instant certificate of transfer of rights to the Plaintiff as necessary documents to succeed to the status of the deceased Kim ○○.

④ On August 7, 2007, the Defendant’s assertion that: (a) on September 14, 2010, the deceased Kim ○○, and ParkB transferred the instant shares and deposits jointly in accordance with the instant agreement; and (b) on September 14, 2010, he/she donated the instant shares and deposits to the Plaintiff without any consideration; (c) on the other hand, the co-inheritors inherited a large amount of shares and deposits; and (d) subsequently, he/she did not receive any consideration from co-inheritors; and (d) donated the shares and deposits

5. Judgment on the issues 2

A. Whether the Pester can become a title trustee

There is no dispute between the parties regarding the fact that TRI is Pucom. However, in full view of the following reasons, it is reasonable to view that TRI may become a trustee under Article 45-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act even if it is a Pucom.

(1) The rights and duties or laws so far as they are legal persons, exist only in the form of a company in the form of documents, and do not have any social function in the company.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff may be the subject of the agreement on title trust, which is a kind of juristic act, can be the subject of the agreement on title trust. On the other hand, the precedents on the theory on the theory on the theory of the denial of legal personality of the Plaintiff-based corporation with respect to the pertinent juristic act are limited to the purport that only the pertinent juristic act can be imposed on the beneficial owner in the hinterland of the company or treated the beneficial owner as the subject of rights and obligations, and it does not mean that the Pacon cannot be the subject of rights and obligations or legal

② The provision on deemed donation of title trust under Article 45-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act does not aim to punish any act of borrowing another’s name for the purpose of tax avoidance, nor to impose any restriction on the management of another person. Thus, there is no reason to deem that the title trustee ought to have separate decision making with the title truster, or should not be entirely controlled by the will of the title truster.

③ If a title trustee’s title trust is denied solely on the ground that the title trustee is Pestacom as alleged by the Plaintiff, the legislative intent of the provision on deemed donation of title trust under Article 45-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is likely to seriously disappear, and is also unreasonable, contrary to the equity with the title truster, to a corporation that is not Pestacom.

B. Whether the proviso of Article 4 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is applicable;

Article 2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that where the donee is a resident (including a non-profit corporation, the head office or main office of which is located in Korea) who has a domicile in Korea as of the date of donation or has a domicile in Korea for not less than one year, gift tax shall be imposed on all donated property (Article 1(1)), and where the donee is a non-resident (including a non-profit corporation, the head office or main office of which is not located in Korea), gift tax shall be imposed only on the donated property in Korea and on the property prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as overseas deposits or overseas installment savings donated by a resident (Article 2(2) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act.

Meanwhile, Article 4 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "the donee shall be liable to pay the gift tax pursuant to this Act: Provided, That where the donee is a profit-making corporation, the gift tax to be paid by such profit-making corporation shall be exempted, but where the profit-making corporation, the title holder of the gift tax pursuant to Article 45-2, is exempted from the gift tax, the actual owner (excluding profit-making corporations) shall be liable to pay the gift tax." Article 4 (4) of the same Act provides that the donor shall be jointly liable to pay the gift tax for specific reasons, such as where the address or domicile of the donee is unclear and where it is difficult to secure the tax claim. However, in cases falling under Article 45-2, Article 45 (5) of the same Act provides

In terms of organic and systematic interpretation of the pertinent provisions, a profit-making corporation's property from others

The purpose of the proviso of Article 4(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, which provides that a profit-making corporation shall be exempted from the gift tax in the event of receiving gift tax or receiving economic benefits, is not because it is impossible for it to prevent double taxation with corporate tax because the property donated by the profit-making corporation constitutes income for each business year of the corporation. Meanwhile, the reason why Article 2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act does not regard the property donated by the profit-making corporation as taxable subject to gift tax is also the same. Thus, the term "tax exemption" under the proviso of Article 4(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act means "where the gift tax is not imposed on the property donated by the profit-making corporation," and it shall not be interpreted as a premise that a

However, it is reasonable to view that the gift tax may be imposed on the actual owner pursuant to the proviso of Article 4(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, on the ground that the fact that the RI is a profit-making corporation is no dispute between the parties concerned, and that the RI, the nominal owner, falls under the case where the gift tax is not imposed on the profit-making corporation.

C. Sub-decision

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

6. Judgment on the issues 3

A. The main sentence of Article 45-2 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "where the actual owner and the title holder are different from the property (excluding land and buildings; hereafter the same shall apply in this Article) which requires a registration, etc. of transfer or exercise of the right, the value of the property shall be deemed to have been donated to the actual owner by the title holder on the date (where the property is a property requiring a registration of change of title, it refers to the date following the year in which the date of acquisition of ownership falls) on which the registration, etc. is made under the title holder, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes (where the property is a property requiring a registration of change of title, it refers to the date following the year in which the date of acquisition of ownership falls)" (hereinafter referred to as "the above provision" in this case), and (2) of the same provision provides that "the provision on deemed donation of title trust" shall not apply to cases where the transferor files a report of change of title under the provisions of Article 105 and Article 10 of the Income Tax Act.

In light of the language and structure of the instant provision and the provision on deemed donation of transfer of a title holder, in cases where a transferee of stocks fails to change a title for a long time, the primary taxpayer of the gift tax is the transferor in the position of the title trustee upon the application of the provision. However, the transferor of stocks can be deemed to have directly involved in the formation of appearance such as the title trust due to the neglect of transfer of a title holder. Meanwhile, by reporting the tax base, etc. of capital gains tax or securities transaction tax pursuant to the proviso of Article 45-2(2) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the presumption of tax avoidance purpose can be reversed, thereby exceeding the subject of the deemed donation. On the other hand, in cases where the stocks held in a title trust are inherited, the existing title trustee is not only the subject of the provision on deemed donation of a title trust on the date of the initial transfer of title holder, but also the existing title trustee does not perform any new act to form the legal relationship with the heir, and there is no means to enforce a change of title holder’s own transfer of stocks.

Meanwhile, Article 10 of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name and Article 2(1) of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Real Estate provides that penalty surcharges for long-term non-registration of real estate shall be imposed only on the person who entered into a contract for the transfer of ownership, and thus, it is clear that the case of acquisition due to inheritance is not subject to penalty surcharges. In full view of such various circumstances, in cases where shares are dead and shares are inherited after the title truster entered into a title trust and transfer of ownership in the future of the title trustee, it is reasonable to deem that the provision on the constructive gift for non-registration of transfer of ownership does not apply (see Supreme Court Decisions 2014Du446, Jan. 12, 2017; 2015Du4046, Apr. 13, 20

B. In light of the above legal principles, as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that the provision on the constructive gift for transfer of a title is not applicable on the ground that the current shares, which had already been held in title by the deceased Kim○○ and the Plaintiff on February 20, 2007, were acquired by inheritance on February 20, 2007, and the transfer of title was not made in its own name until January 1, 2009, the day following the end of the date of inheritance. Therefore, each disposition of this case 2 and 3, which imposed gift tax on the deceased Kim○○ and the Plaintiff by applying the provision on constructive gift for transfer of title, is unlawful (the Plaintiff was a sole inheritance of the instant shares from the deceased Kim○○○, and the Plaintiff was not a donation from the deceased Kim○○○ and ParkB, and the Plaintiff did not further decide on this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion on the disposition of this case on other premise).

7. Judgment on the issues 4

(a) An administrative disposition causes natural or legal persons who have legal capacity, unless there are special circumstances;

The head of the tax office of ○○○ may not impose a tax on a party who has no legal capacity due to the death of the deceased. However, as recognized earlier, even though the deceased ○○○ died on February 20, 2007 and the deceased ○○○ on November 4, 201, the head of the tax office imposed a gift tax on the deceased on December 1, 2014, after the deceased’s death. As such, the first and the third dispositions of this case are imposed on the deceased after the deceased ○○ and the deceased ○○○○ were imposed on the deceased, and thus, the defect is significant and objective, and thus, it is reasonable to deem that the notice of succession to the tax liability of the Plaintiff is null and void.

B. As to this, the establishment and determination of the tax liability should be made against the original taxpayer. As such, Article 24(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes only argues that a person liable to pay national taxes subject to inheritance under Article 24(5) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes is not an heir but an heir, and that a disposition or procedure conducted before the birth is effective against the heir, and it is apparent that it is not based on the form and content of the language that “an administrative disposition under the premise necessary to allow the heir to succeed to the tax liability,” and thus, the heir should succeed to the tax liability after the determination of the tax liability against the decedent. In order for the heir to object to this, the heir must also dispute the notification of taxation on the decedent and the notification of succession

However, Article 24 (Succession of Tax Liability due to Inheritance) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes is stipulated in Paragraph (1).

The heir or administrator of inherited property provided for in Article 1053 of the Civil Act shall be liable to pay national taxes, additional dues and expenses for disposition on default imposed on or to be paid by the predecessor to the extent of the inherited property. Article 1053 of the same Act provides that "any disposition or procedure taken against the decedent shall also be effective as against the heir or administrator of inherited property pursuant to paragraph (1)." In addition to the above provisions, any administrative disposition taken against the deceased person as seen above shall be null and void: "disposition or procedure taken against the decedent" under Article 24 (5) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes shall be interpreted as "disposition or procedure taken against the decedent before the predecessor's birth." Since the tax obligation of the decedent, which was established abstract at the time of the commencement of the taxation, is succeeded to pursuant to Article 24 (1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, the imposition and collection of the tax obligation succeeded after the predecessor's death shall be made against the heir, and the notification of succession to the tax obligation shall not be accepted as a disposition of the head of the above tax office.

8. Conclusion

For the same reason, each of the instant dispositions is unlawful, and thus, is revoked (However, it is revoked in the sense that the nullification of each of the instant dispositions Nos. 1 and 3 is declared). As long as the Plaintiff’s claim is accepted in entirety, it is not further determined as to the conjunctive assertion regarding the instant disposition No. 4, and it is so decided as per Disposition