사실관계를 종합하여 볼 때, 원고들의 명의신탁에 의한 증여세 부과처분은 정당함.[국승]
Busan District Court 2013Guhap20517 (20 December 20, 2014)
In full view of the facts, the imposition of gift tax by the plaintiffs' title trust is legitimate.
(1) In light of the fact that when compiling the facts in the first instance trial, the Plaintiffs issued comprehensive authorization, including the names of shareholders when issuing a certificate of personal seal impression, and the single shareholder who owns the entire shares appears to have been able to avoid the income progressive tax rate and the secondary tax liability for delinquent amount by distributed shares in form, the disposition regarding the Plaintiffs’ title trust is legitimate.
Legal fiction of donation of title trust property under Article 45-2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act
2014Nu2051 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax
ParkA and 1
○○ Head of tax office
Busan District Court Decision 2013Guhap20517 Decided February 20, 2014
November 5, 2014
December 17, 2014
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke all imposition of principal tax and additional tax as stated in the attached Table 1 that the defendant imposed on the plaintiffs.
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
The reason for this Court's decision is as follows, Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act are as follows: (a) of Section 1-b (b) of Section 2 of Section 1 of Section 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance is to be "(the plaintiff's mother and mother, the plaintiff Park GA, and Park BB are interested by HongC, RedD, and Red EE)"; and (b) Section 8 is to be included in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except that the last part of Section 8 is to be cut off from the 9th one as follows:
(The plaintiff basically repeats the same argument in the first instance trial. The judgment of the first instance court is justifiable even if the plaintiffs consider the allegations and reasons for partial supplementation in the trial, and examine Gap evidence Nos. 16 through 25 newly submitted, taking into account the respective descriptions of evidence No. 16 through 25).
2. Parts to be dried;
In light of the above legal principles, the Defendant’s ground of appeal as to this case is justifiable.
In light of the following circumstances, each statement of Gap evidence Nos. 21 through 24 alone is insufficient to acknowledge that there was no purpose of tax avoidance with respect to the title trust of the shares of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
① Although the Plaintiffs had a clear purpose of tax avoidance and non-related tax avoidance, the Plaintiffs’ fraud by pro-friendly redC
HongC’s assertion that title trust was held in order to reduce damage caused by such
It is difficult to provide a reasonable explanation on the reasons for changing the name of shares, and the assertion that the purpose of additional points is to obtain in the selection of government-funded business operators is to obtain from the selection of government-funded business operators is to satisfy the representative of a company who is a female and not the requirement of ownership of the shares. Therefore, it is difficult to view this as a clear
② Rather, as ○○○○’s revenue has increased significantly, whether a dividend will be made to the shareholders in the future.
It seems that HongD could have avoided the application of progressive tax rate and the secondary tax liability on ○○○○ by distributing the ownership of ○○○ stock as a shareholder who actually owns the entire ○○○ stocks.
3. Direct understanding of the testimony of the RedD witness of the first instance court, the RedF witness of the first instance court, and the vindication (Evidence A 25) of the RedD (Evidence A), etc. of the RedD and RedF in charge of the management of ○○○○○○ in a simple and simple manner.
As a party, it is difficult to believe the testimony as it is.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed in its entirety due to the lack of grounds, and the judgment of the court of first instance is so dismissed.
The conclusion is just, and all appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed on the ground that they are without merit.