2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A. On October 16, 200, Non-party Kim Jong-soo acquired 200,000 shares (hereinafter "the shares of this case") in the name of the plaintiff due to capital increase by ○○2 Dong ○○-1 Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "non-party") for issuing new shares based on the capital increase by ○○ Mutual Savings and Finance Company (hereinafter "non-party Mutual Savings and Finance Company") located at Jeju on October 16, 200, when the non-party Kim Jong-○ was

B. Accordingly, on April 9, 2007, the Defendant deemed that Nonparty Kim Ho-ho acquired the instant shares under the Plaintiff’s name as the title trust, and deemed that the said Kim Ho-ho donated the said shares to be donated to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 41-2 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6780, Dec. 18, 2002; hereinafter referred to as the “Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”), and issued the instant disposition imposing KRW 1,360,800,000 in total of the gift tax as stated in the Plaintiff’s claim.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Related statutes;

Article 41-2 (Presumption of Donation of Title Trust Property)

3. Determination on the legitimacy of the disposition

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Although the Plaintiff received a request to request that the number of Nonparty 1, who is the owner of the instant shares, become a second-class shareholder of the instant shares from Kim ○, the Plaintiff was not allowed to become the second-class shareholder of the instant shares. However, even though the second-class shareholder did not consent to become the second-class shareholder, the Plaintiff acquired the instant shares by stealing the Plaintiff’s name without the Plaintiff’s consent. As such, the instant disposition imposed by applying the provision on deemed donation on the premise that there was a title trust agreement between

(2) Even if there was a title trust agreement between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff asked the Plaintiff to borrow the name in the name of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff’s request was due to the fact that the Plaintiff had no relationship with Kim○, which was entitled to take over the instant shares in accordance with the Financial Supervisory Service standards. The Kim○ had already been an oligopolistic shareholder of the Plaintiff’s treasury by acquiring 602,129 shares of the previous shares in the name of Jeong○, which was the transfer of the instant shares, on August 2000, which was the transfer of the instant shares, and thus, the Plaintiff had already become an oligopolistic shareholder of the Nonparty’s treasury. Accordingly, the Plaintiff borrowed the Plaintiff’s name and thereafter acquired the instant shares, which was 15.9% of the total issued shares of the Nonparty’s treasury, did not affect any tax liability as an oligopolistic shareholder with the burden of secondary tax liability or deemed acquisition tax under the Framework Act on National Taxes or the Local Tax Act, and there was no tax liability, such as global income tax, transfer income tax, etc., which could have been reduced due to decline capital gains.

B. Determination

(1) Whether title trust of the instant shares was held

In full view of each of the evidence mentioned above, Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, and 3-3 of the evidence Nos. 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings in the testimony of the witness door ○, the plaintiff, on October 16, 200 at the time of issuing new stocks by offering new stocks, becomes a next shareholder of the shares of this case actually acquired by the non-party Kim ○ at the request of the non-party Kim ○, who lent his own name to the non-party Kim ○ at the time of issuing new stocks, and it can be recognized that the plaintiff submitted the documents such as a certificate of personal seal impression necessary for acquiring the above shares, a resident registration certificate, and an abstract of the above shares. Thus, according to the evidence Nos. 4, 5, and 6, the plaintiff must be deemed to have accepted the above recognition at the time of becoming a second shareholder of the shares of this case. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff requested the non-party bank to change the name of this case is insufficient.

(2) Whether there was no tax avoidance purpose in the instant title trust

The legislative purport of Article 41-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is to recognize an exception to the principle of substantial taxation to the purport that the act of tax avoidance by using the title trust system is effectively prevented, and thus, it is possible to apply the proviso of the same Article only where the purpose of tax avoidance is not included in the purpose of the title trust, and the burden of proving that there was no purpose of tax avoidance in the title trust exists. Therefore, for the fact that there was no purpose of tax avoidance, it may be proven by means of proving that there was a purpose other than the purpose of tax avoidance. However, as the nominal owner who bears the burden of proving the burden of proof, there was an obvious purpose irrelevant to the tax avoidance in the title trust, to the extent that there was no purpose of tax avoidance in the title trust, and the fact that there was no tax avoidance at the time of the title trust or in the future has to be proved to the extent that it would not have any doubt (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Du1421, Jun. 11, 2004>

Therefore, we examine whether the Plaintiff’s title trust of the instant shares was eligible to take over the instant shares in accordance with the Financial Supervisory Service’s standard, and whether the Plaintiff did not evade taxes. In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the above evidence and evidence No. 5-1 and No. 2, Nonparty 1 purchased 602,129 shares, which are all issued by Nonparty 2, from the shareholders of Nonparty 2, including Gook-ok, to June 30, 2001, and held in title trust in the future, and thereafter, it did not have any specific purpose to determine whether the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant shares, including the instant shares, was 650,00 shares, which were issued with capital gains tax at the time of the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant shares, and thus, it does not appear that the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant shares by Nonparty 2, including the Plaintiff and Nonparty 2’s acquisition of the instant shares, and thus, it does not have any specific purpose to determine whether the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant shares, including the instant shares, under title trust.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.