4.II Head of J Tax Office 5.J

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

(a) YL, which is the founder of KRK Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "KK"), was established in the name of the former and incumbent officers and employees of KR, and one’s own territory, and paid attention to and managed the shares of KR through the said account.

B. On July 6, 2002, LL died, and LL’s ASEAN succeeded to 795,228 shares of KK’s borrowed name shares held by LL. HL acquired the shares of KK with the securities account opened in the name of 69 shareholders of KK, including all financial directors, Kim NN and the head of sub-general, and HLL and HLM.

C. From December 5, 2011 to December 31, 2011, the Director of the Gwangju Regional Tax Office discovered that “EM was under title trust with 34 persons, including the Plaintiffs,” and notified the Defendants of the taxation data.

D. Accordingly, the defendants imposed each gift tax (including additional tax) on the plaintiffs who are title trustee pursuant to Article 43(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5193, Dec. 30, 1996; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 41-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5582, Dec. 28, 1998; hereinafter the same shall apply) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6780, Dec. 18, 2002; hereinafter the same shall apply).

F. While the lawsuit in this case was pending, the director of the tax office corrected the gift tax on the Plaintiff DudD from the OOOE to the OOOE (hereinafter “the disposition imposing the remaining gift tax remaining after the reduction of Plaintiff DudD and the disposition imposing the gift tax on the remaining Plaintiffs”

[Grounds for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 7, and Eul evidence 1, 2, and 8, and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

(1) In this case, where the 15 years of the exclusion period of national tax (Article 26-2(1)4 of the Framework Act on National Taxes) applies, Defendant II director of the tax office asserts that the disposition of gift tax imposed on Plaintiff BD is an unlawful disposition against Plaintiff BD with the exemption period of national tax, since the period of exclusion is calculated from the following day of the reporting period of the tax base (three months from the last day of the month to which the date of donation belongs), which is the starting date of the exclusion period of national tax, if the exclusion period is calculated from the following day of the reporting period of the tax base (three months from the last day of the month to which the date of donation belongs).

(2) The Plaintiffs, as well as KK’s Fund Team, did not know that “company business needs” only opened a securities account upon request, and that “it is used as an account for the management of borrowed-name shares of M,” and asserted that each of the instant dispositions was unlawful on the grounds that there was no agreement on stock title trust between the Plaintiffs and M, and even if the title trust relationship is established, it is aimed at securing the management right and maintaining listing of M, and there was no purpose of tax avoidance.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) Prior to commencement of the inheritance, instruction was holding 211 and 918 shares of KR. As of 2002, the number of shares issued by KR is 2,205 and 102 shares.

(2) ① HM transferred 363,570 out of the borrowed-name shares from around 2002 to June 201, but did not declare it. The transfer income tax on this matter reaches the OOE.

② KK distributed the total amount of OOO to shareholders from around 2006 to around 2010. HOM did not file a total return even when it received dividends for borrowed-name shares. The estimated amount of tax reaches OO won.

(3) In the investigation of tax offenses against M, the relevant persons made a statement as follows.

○ Statement of MM on October 11, 201

► 차명주식의 명의자들은 회사의 임직원들과 아버지인 임LL의 지인들이 대부분이다.

► 이 차명주식의 명의자들은 명의를 빌려준 사실을 알고 있을 것이다

► 본인이 보유하고 있는 KKK의 주식은 실명주식과 차명주식을 합하여 60~70만주 정도 된다.

► KKK에서 주주들에게 배당할 당시 실제 소유주인 본인의 소득으로 합산하여 신고・납부하지 않았다.

► 차명으로 관리하다가 2011. 4 경 앙도한 주식 157,854주에 대한 앙도소득세를 신고・납부하지 않았다.

○ Head-PP, the Vice-Chief of KK

< The Statement> On June 17, 2011>

► 1999.경부터 KKK의 차명 주식계좌를 관리해 왔다.

► 차명 주식계좌의 실제 주인은 임MM이다

► 차명 주식계좌를 개설할 직원들에게 먼저 연락하여 계좌개설에 필요한 서류를 준비시킨 다음 자금부 직원과 함께 해당 증권사에 가서 계좌를 개설하고， 그 계좌의 카드 등을 받아 왔다.

► 계좌 개설 전 직원들에게 "이 계좌는 차명이니까 명의를 빌려달라"고 설명하였다. 구체적으로 누구의 소유라는 것은 설명하지 않았으나, 계좌의 실 주인이 누구라는 것은 직원들도 어느정도 짐작하고 있었을 것이다.

► 직원들에게 업무상 필요로 증권계좌가 필요하다고 말했을 뿐, 주식양도거래에 관한 이야기는 한 적이 없다.

► 원고들을 비롯한 KKK의 직원들은 계좌개설의 대가로 금원을 받지 않았다.

► 당시 본인이 아니더라도 신분증으로 실명이 확인되고 도장이 있다면 대리로 증권계좌 개설이 가능하였다.

► 본인이 증권계좌를 관리하였으며， 계좌명의인에게 도장이나 카드의 관리사실을 알려준 사실은 없다.

► 주주총회 개최시에도 차명주주에게 참석을 요구한 적은 없다. 다만， 주주총회의 개최를 위해서 본사 직원들에게 참석하도록 요구했고 차명주주들이 출석한 것으로 주주총회 참석장에 날인하였다.

► 차명주주들은 주주총회 의결권 행사에 관하여 전혀 알지 못했다.

► 증인이 전화로 계좌개설을 부탁할 당시, 증권계좌인지, 은행계좌인지를 특정하지 않았다. 전화로 부탁하여 대리로 계좌를 개설한 경우 증권계좌인지를 알 수 없었을 것이다.

○ Each statement made by Plaintiffs KimE, SCC, SB, and ED

► KKK의 전 직원이었다.

► KKK의 주식 10，000주가 본인의 명의로 되어 있었다는 것을 나중에 알았다.

► KKK의 자금담당부서의 부탁을 받고 증권계좌를 개설하였고， 증권회사에 방문하지는 않았다. 주식취득 대금을 부담한바 없다.

► 주식의 실제 소유자는 임MM로 생각한다.

► KKK의 전 직원이었다.

► KKK의 주식 11，770주가 본인의 명의로 되어 있었다는 것을 알고 있었다.

► KKK의 자금담당부서의 부탁으로 직접 증권사에 방문하여 계좌를 개설하였다. 주식취득 대금을 부담한바 없다

► 명의만 빌려주었을 뿐 주식의 실소유자가 누구인지 알지 못한다.

► 임MM의 고향 선배로, KKK상호신용금고의 대표이사였다.

► KKK의 주식 11，754주가 본인의 명의로 되어 있었다는 것을 알고 있었다.

► KKK의 자금담당부서의 부탁으로 직접 증권회사에 방문하여 계좌 개설후 통장과 카드를 회사에 교부하였다. 주식취득 대금을 부담한바 없다.

► 주식의 실제 소유자는 임MM로 생각한다.

► KKK의 전 직원의 지인이었다.

► KKK의 주식 13，550주가 본인의 명의로 되어 있었다는 것을 모르고 있었다.

► 임MM의 부탁으로 주민등록증만 주었고, 증권회사에 방문하지 않았다. 주식취득 대금을 부담한바 없다.

► 주식의 실제 소유자가 누구인지 알지 못한다.

(4) On June 19, 2012, the title trustee, including the Plaintiffs, filed a lawsuit seeking compensation for damages equivalent to the gift tax and additional dues imposed by the Gwangju District Court Branch Branching 2012Gahap1332 on KK and YM. On November 21, 2012, the said support decided to recommend reconciliation that “KK and PE will pay the Plaintiffs the amount equivalent to 90% of the gift tax and additional dues imposed on them,” and the said decision to recommend reconciliation became final and conclusive on December 11, 2012.

[Reasons for Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3-5, Eul evidence Nos. 3-6 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) Determination on the Plaintiff’s assertion

Article 32-2 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act provides that where the actual owner and the nominal owner are different in property, the actual owner shall be deemed to have donated such property to the nominal owner on the day when the registration, etc. is made to the nominal owner, notwithstanding Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

Meanwhile, the transfer of registered shares cannot be asserted against the company unless the name and address of the acquisitor are entered in the register of shareholders, and it is required that the actual owner and the nominal owner belong to another person in the property requiring the transfer or exercise of the right which is the legal requirement to be deemed donation in the register of shareholders in the name of another person who is not the actual owner of shares, and the provisions of Article 311(1) and (2) of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (hereinafter “Capital Markets Act”) are to regulate the relationship between the customer's securities company or alternative settlement company, but it is not a provision to regulate the relationship between the customer's securities company or alternative settlement company, and Article 316(1) and (2) of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act recognizes the validity of the transfer of shares as the requirement for the notification of the alternative settlement company and the entry of the issuing company in the register of shareholders. In full view of the above, it cannot be recognized that only the entry made in the customers account book or the depositors account book of the alternative settlement company can be acknowledged as having the same effect as the transfer of shares.

The list of shareholders is closed on December 31 of each year, and the Korea Securities Depository shall notify the issuing company of the list of the shareholders recorded in the customer account book of the securities company on the date of closing the register of shareholders (Article 315(3) of the former Securities and Exchange Act). As regards the KR stocks acquired in the securities transaction market during 2006 by the Plaintiff Daddd Dos on December 31, 2006, it can be sufficiently recognized that the actual owner on the list of shareholders registered in the securities transaction market has changed the name of the Plaintiff Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod. Therefore, the above assertion by the Plaintiff Dud Dod Dok whose national tax exclusion period was over is over is without merit.

(2) Judgment on the plaintiffs' assertion

(A) As to the title trust relationship

The provision of this case applies to property requiring registration, etc. for the transfer or exercise of rights by agreement or communication between the actual owner and the nominal owner, and thus, it cannot be applied where registration, etc. is unilaterally made in the name of the nominal owner regardless of the intent of the nominal owner. In this case, if the tax authority establishes only that the actual owner is different from the nominal owner, and establishes that the registration, etc. of the nominal owner was made in the unilateral act of the actual owner regardless of the intent of the nominal owner, the nominal owner should be the nominal owner who asserts that the registration, etc. of the nominal owner was made in the unilateral act (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du15780, Feb. 14, 2008). In addition, the title trust relationship is not necessarily established by an implied agreement, rather than by an express agreement between the truster and the trustee, and it does not mean that there was no express agreement between the parties related to the opening of the borrowed account (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da9091, Jan. 5, 2001).

In other words, the following circumstances revealed from the above facts, the plaintiffs were found to have been employed by KK, and the plaintiffs were in a position that it is difficult for KK to refuse the request of PE or PE as its employees, and the plaintiffs were in a position that it was difficult to refuse the request, and the plaintiffs did not assert the identity theft in the above damages claims filed against PE or KK since each disposition of this case was made even after the disposition of this case, and the plaintiffs did not assert the identity theft in the above damages claims filed against PE or KK, and the third, according to the statements made by the plaintiffs KimE, CC, 2, and eD and related persons at the time of the National Tax Service investigation by the National Tax Service, the plaintiffs appear to have agreed to establish their securities accounts in their names, and it can be seen that the above securities accounts were used for the name trading of KR stocks at least at least at least at least at least at least at least at the time between the plaintiffs and MF.

(B) As to whether there was a purpose of tax avoidance

The legislative intent of the instant provision is to effectively prevent the act of tax avoidance using the title trust system and realize the tax justice, and the application of the proviso of the same Article is possible only if the purpose of the title trust is not included in the purpose of the tax avoidance, and in this case, the burden of proving that there was no other purpose of the tax avoidance can be proven by means of proving that there was no other purpose of the tax avoidance. Therefore, while the nominal owner, who bears the burden of proof, has a clear purpose of tax avoidance which is irrelevant to the tax avoidance to the extent that it is recognized that there was no purpose of the tax avoidance in the title trust, and that there was no tax avoidance at the time of the title trust or in the future, and that there was no tax avoidance at the time of the title trust, should be proven to the extent that there is no doubt if it is ordinary by evidence that is objective and objective (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Du11220, Sept. 22, 2006).

Article 94 (1) 3 (a) of the Income Tax Act and Article 157 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 8145 of Dec. 30, 2006) (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18705 of Feb. 19, 2005) on the ground that the Plaintiffs did not prove that the above tax avoidance purpose was not achieved, and that MM owned 1,07,146 shares of KK at the time of the commencement of the inheritance (i.e., 21,918 + 79,228 shares + 795,205, and 45% of the total shares issued, and (ii) on the stock under title trust and securities transaction tax of K at the time of the commencement of the inheritance, it is reasonable to see that the above presumed O transfer income tax was collected for the title trust transaction under the above Article 157 (4) (Article 157 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed in entirety, and they are decided as per Disposition.