이전 대표자인 원고에게 명의신탁한 것은 증여의제에 해당함[국승]
Changwon District Court 201Guhap3690 (No. 27, 2012)
The fact that title trust was held in trust with the previous representative constitutes deemed donation.
The imposition of the shares of this case which the present representative held in title on the previous representative is legitimate in the disposition of taxation on the deemed donation due to the absence of special circumstances such as identity theft.
(C)The revocation of the disposition imposing gift tax;
CHAPTER A
Kim Jong-soo
Changwon District Court Decision 201Guhap3690 Decided September 27, 2012
November 14, 2013
January 16, 2014
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the changed claim in exchange in the trial are all dismissed.
2. The costs of the lawsuit after the appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The judgment of the first instance court shall be revoked. On December 1, 2004, the Defendant revoked the imposition of the principal tax and additional tax on the gift tax on the Plaintiff on August 3, 2010, and on December 2, 2004, the OOOOO(main tax) of the gift tax on the gift on December 2, 2004, and on August 5, 2013 against the Plaintiff on December 1, 2004, the additional tax on negligent tax returns, OOOOO(OO) of the gift tax on the gift tax on the additional tax on the negligent tax on the gift on December 2, 2004, and the additional tax on additional tax on the additional tax on December 3, 204 (the Plaintiff exchanged each principal tax and additional tax on the gift from the first instance to August 3, 201), and the Defendant again requested the revocation of the imposition of the additional tax on each of the previous grounds for imposition of the additional tax on each of the additional tax on each of the grounds for imposition.
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows. Thus, it is consistent with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the following modifications.
On December 1, 2013, the first instance court decided and notified OOOOO(including additional taxes) on No. 11 of the decision (hereinafter referred to as "the disposition in this case"). On December 2, 2004, the defendant issued a new disposition to impose additional tax on OOOOOO(including additional taxes) on OOOO(including additional taxes) on OOOO(the disposition in this case) on OOO(the disposition in this case). On 14th, the defendant revoked each of the original disposition in his authority and specified the grounds for calculation and calculation details of each additional tax. On 1st, 2013, OOOO(the additional disposition in this case) on OOOO(the additional disposition in this case) on OOOO(the additional disposition in this case, and OOOOO(the additional disposition in this case) on OOOO(the additional disposition in this case) on 14th, 2013.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit. Since the plaintiff's appeal about each part of the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and it is dismissed as it is without merit. The plaintiff's appeal about each part of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed. The plaintiff's claim for exchange change in the trial (the additional tax of each gift tax) is all dismissed (the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of each disposition of imposition of additional tax among the initial disposition of first instance is withdrawn due to the exchange change in the lawsuit filed in the trial and the