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

The reasoning for the judgment of the court in this case is as stated in the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance except for the parts added or added below. Thus, this is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

○ The following shall be added to the 7th written judgment of the first instance court (hereinafter referred to as “written judgment of the first instance”) below:

A tax investigation is a kind of administrative investigation for the realization of the State's right to impose taxes, and refers to any act of making inquiries to determine or correct the tax base and amount of national tax and inspecting or investigating books, documents and other articles, or ordering the submission thereof. In the case of a tax investigation for which the tax authority's right to ask questions to a taxpayer or a person who is deemed to have a transaction with the taxpayer (hereinafter referred to as "taxpayer, etc.") bears the legal obligation to allow the taxpayer to answer questions and undergo an inspection for the collection of the taxation data. Meanwhile, a repeated tax investigation for the same item and taxable period may seriously infringe not only on the taxpayer's freedom of business or legal stability, but also lead to the abuse of the authority to conduct a tax investigation. Therefore, it is necessary to be prohibited except in exceptional cases that seriously

○ 8 10 10 m2, “after the 8th 10 m2,” and ③ 2013 m20, where a tax authority’s inquiry and investigation for a tax disposition was made, and it is difficult to deem that ○○○ has a legal obligation to answer questions for tax officials to collect taxation data and to allow them to inspect.”

○ Not less than 8 7 acts under 7 acts, the following shall be added to “the former Framework Act on National Taxes.”

○ 8 At the bottom of 8, the following shall be added to:

On the other hand, the Plaintiff asserts that the collection of cash loan from June 27, 2005 by the director of the regional tax office of ○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as the “○○○”) upon the temporary storage investigation constitutes a violation of the warrant requirement (the principle of law procedure). Thus, even if the taxation data can be secured by the aforementioned temporary storage investigation, the instant case did not meet the requirements of the temporary storage investigation, and thus, it cannot be considered as

Article 81-10(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes provides that a tax official may not keep books, documents, etc. of a taxpayer at the tax office for the purpose of a tax investigation, but may temporarily keep them within the minimum extent necessary for the purpose of a tax investigation with the consent of the taxpayer. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement in subparagraph 12, the fact that ○○ Director of the Regional Tax Office conducted from January 13, 2016 to March 28, 2016 and kept them temporarily with the consent of ○○○○○○○ with the consent of ○○○○○○○ in an integrated investigation, including corporate tax, etc. on ○○○○○ (1). Although the consent for temporary storage was not based on the free will of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the consent for such temporary storage was not based on the free will of the Plaintiff, it is difficult to view that ○○ Director of the Regional Tax Office’s temporary storage during the aforementioned integrated investigation period exceeded the necessary minimum scope.

○ 9쪽 밑에서 3행 "볼 수 없고"다음에"(원고는 이 사건 유상증자가 ○○○○○ 주식회사의 요구에 따라 이루어졌고 이를 실행하는 과정에서 원고 형제들의 비협조로 기존의 명의신탁 관계를 해소할 수 없던 사실상의 장애가 존재하였다고도 주장하나, 바○○○의 주식은 이 사건 유상증자를 실시하기 직전연도인 2004년에도 이○○로부터 원고에게로 1,600주, 안□□, 이▤▤, 양▥▥로부터 원고에게로 합계 400주가 이동된 내역이 있는 점, 원고가 이 사건 유상증자 당시 이▦▦ 명의로 4억 원을 대출받기도 한 점 등에 비추어 보면, 원고의 위 주장을 받아들이기 어렵다)"를 추가한다.

○ 10 (10) 5 (10) cases where a title trust relationship is established with respect to new shares under a title trust with Supreme Court Decision 2017Du39419 Decided December 13, 2017, the Plaintiff argued that it should be different from the case of a general title trust inasmuch as it is difficult to deem that there is any additional tax avoidance in relation to the existing shares under a title trust with respect to the acquisition of new shares under a title trust. However, the above Supreme Court decision of the Plaintiff, when the title holder bears the burden of proof, has a clear purpose of having no relation to the tax avoidance to the extent that it is recognized that there was no tax avoidance purpose in the title trust, and that there was no tax avoidance at the time of the title trust or there was no tax avoidance at the time of the title trust, and based on this, should be added to the burden of proof that the title holder of the shares under a title trust bears the burden of proof.

Inasmuch as ○○○ 10’s 10th 9th 9th son, the following was added “(the Plaintiff asserted that, at the time of the instant capital increase with consideration for the capital increase, ○○ was a situation in which the losses were accumulated, making it difficult to expect future dividends due to the uncertainty of the existence and abolition of the company, but in light of the above ○○○○’s performance, the foregoing assertion is difficult to accept)

○ 10 12 12 mal. “Influent, it is difficult for the Plaintiff to add “(the Plaintiff is also the person who is also the Plaintiff that there is a difference between the income tax rate to be applied to the Plaintiff and the two others).”

○ At the bottom of 10 up to 2 'Burk' shall add "only the description of evidence No. 13" to the following:

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

Related Acts and subordinate statutes

former Framework Act on National Taxes (Amended by Act No. 15220, Dec. 19, 2017)

Article 81-2 (Establishment and Delivery of Taxpayers' Right Charter)

(2) A tax official shall deliver a document stating the details of the taxpayers' rights charter pursuant to paragraph (1) to taxpayers in any of the following cases:

1. Where he/she asks questions in order to determine or correct the tax base of national tax and the amount of tax, or inspects or investigates the relevant account books, documents or other articles or orders the submission thereof (including the investigation of a tax offence under the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Offenses Act; hereafter in this Chapter, referred to as "tax investigation");

former Framework Act on National Taxes (Amended by Act No. 14382, Dec. 20, 2016)

Article 81-4 (Prohibition of Abuse of Right of Tax Investigation)

(2) Tax officials may not conduct reinvestigation for the same items of taxation and for the same taxable period, except in any of the following cases:

1. Where obvious evidence exists that prove a suspicion of tax evasion;

2. Where it is necessary to investigate a trading partner;

3. Where mistakes relating to two or more taxable periods exist;

4. Where an investigation is conducted in accordance with a decision on necessary disposition under Article 65 (1) 3 (including cases applied mutatis mutandis in Articles 66 (6) and 81) or a decision on reinvestigation under Article 81-15 (4) 2;

5. Where a taxpayer provides money or goods to a tax official in connection with his/her duties, or arranges the provision of money or goods;

6. Other cases similar to subparagraphs 1 through 5, which are prescribed by Presidential Decree.

§ 81-10 (Prohibition of Keeping Books and Documents)

(1) A tax official shall not keep books, documents, etc. (hereafter in this Article, referred to as "books, etc.") of a taxpayer voluntarily at the tax office for the purpose of a tax investigation: Provided, That he/she may keep them temporarily for the period of tax investigation within the minimum extent necessary for the purpose upon consent of

(2) Where a taxpayer requests the return of the books, etc. temporarily kept pursuant to the proviso to paragraph (1), such books, etc. shall be returned immediately unless the investigation is hindered. In such cases, a tax official may keep the copies of such books, etc. and may request the taxpayer to sign or affix a seal to confirm that the copies are identical to the originals.

(3) Where a taxpayer intends to temporarily keep books, etc. at the tax office pursuant to paragraph (1), he/she shall obtain a written consent for temporary storage from a person with a legitimate authority, such as a taxpayer, possessor, or keeper, and deliver a temporary storage certificate

former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8828 of Dec. 31, 2007)

Article 4 (Gift Tax Liability)

(1) A donee shall be liable to pay gift tax pursuant to this Act: Provided, That where the donee is a profit-making corporation, the gift tax payable by such profit-making corporation shall be exempted, but where the profit-making corporation, the title holder of the gift tax under Article 45-2, is exempted from paying the gift tax, the actual owner (

(5) In a case falling under paragraph (2) and Article 45-2, the donor shall be jointly and severally liable for payment with the donee even if the donee does not fall under any of subparagraphs of paragraph (4).

Article 45-2 (Presumption of Donation of Title Trust Property)

(1) Where the actual owner and the nominal owner are different in property (excluding land and buildings; hereafter the same shall apply in this Article), the value of which is required to be registered, etc. for the transfer or exercise of rights, notwithstanding Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the nominal owner shall be deemed to have donated the value of such property to the actual owner on the date (where the property is subject to a change of ownership, referring to the date following the end of the year following the year in which the date of acquisition of ownership falls) on which the actual owner registers

1. Where the transfer is not made in the name of another person or is made in the name of the actual owner who has acquired the ownership without any purpose of tax avoidance;

(2) Where property is registered, etc. in the name of another person, and a change of ownership is not made in the name of the actual owner, or where the name of stocks, etc. is not converted in the name of the actual owner during the grace period, it

(3) In the application of the provisions of paragraph (1), where a register of stockholders or an employee has not been prepared, the decision of transfer shall be made in accordance with the documents concerning stockholders, etc. submitted to the head of tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment and the detailed statement on the state of changes in stocks, etc.

(6) The term "taxs under paragraphs (1) 1 and (2) means the national tax and local tax under subparagraphs 1 and 7 of Article 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and the customs under the Customs Act.

Finally.

1) Among reference materials submitted by the Plaintiff on June 7, 2018, ‘the notice of consolidated investigation of corporate tax for 2016 against ○○○○' is ‘the notice of consolidated investigation of corporate tax for 2016: ‘the consolidated investigation of corporate tax', ‘the taxable period subject to the investigation: January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2014; ‘the investigation period: January 13, 2016 to March 28, 2016 (76 days)'; and ‘the report of integrated investigation of corporate tax for 2016 to ○○○○○' is written as ‘the report of consolidated investigation of corporate tax for 2009 and February 5, 201,' stating that the Plaintiff's shares held by 200 and 2000 other than this year constitute the Plaintiff's shares under title trust.'