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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 000 (including additional tax of KRW 000) on July 6, 2004 to the Plaintiff on January 4, 2016 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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 written by the following. 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 at the 5th day below the judgment of the first instance court:

The defendant asserts that if the tax authority proves that "the actual owner is different from the nominal owner," the tax authority should prove that "no agreement on title trust was reached on the part of the nominal owner denying such agreement." However, if the title trustee dies, the status of the title trustee is succeeded to by his/her heir (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da35985, May 31, 1996). It is reasonable to deem that there was a new title trust agreement between the title truster and the heir of the title trustee, which is separate from the existing title trust, has the burden of proof on the defendant, who is the tax authority, because

○ The judgment of the first instance court 10 2 to 6 e.g. (c) 10 e.g., 2 e. (c).

C) It is difficult to find that the Plaintiff paid the inheritance tax on the portion of the instant shares held in title trust merely because it was merely a payment of the expenses incurred in relation to the title trust, and it is difficult to find that there was a new title trust agreement on the instant shares

The Defendant asserts to the effect that the title trust property is owned by a truster, so O○ and his children should have excluded the shares of this case under the name of the deceased from the inherited property, but it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff and OO○○ transferred the entire shares under the name of OO○○ without taking measures such as exclusion from the inherited property of the deceased, and that the Plaintiff unilaterally made a transfer of title to the shares under the name of OO○○ upon acceptance of a criminal act, such as forging of a private document, etc. Thus, the Plaintiff and OO○ was at least implied agreement on the title trust between the Plaintiff and OO○. According to the evidence No. 5, the Plaintiff stated that the transfer of title to the shares of this case should be accompanied by the articles of incorporation of the company of this case, but the articles of incorporation of the company of this case appears to have been created in accordance with the standard articles of incorporation (Evidence No. 6) of the Ministry of Justice, so it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff, as an unlisted company, did not have reached an agreement with the representative director or transfer of title to the shares of this case.

○ The following shall be added to the 10th end of the 12th judgment of the first instance court:

In addition, in cases where a title trustee dies and the status of a title trustee is succeeded, and a change of title is made in the future, if the provision on deemed donation is applied in addition to the original title trust, it may result in an excessive amount of gift tax contrary to equity when the amount of gift tax can be imposed, compared to the case where shares or purchase funds are donated to the trustee.

2. Conclusion

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