2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. One-half of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

A. On December 29, 2007, the Plaintiff reported 2,264,698 shares of this case (hereinafter referred to as " XX"), 200 shares of this case, 39,600 shares of this case, 825,70 shares of this case (hereinafter referred to as "OO city gas") from 200, 300 shares of this case (hereinafter referred to as "20 shares of this case"), 30,00 shares of 20,00 shares of 20,00 shares of 30,00 shares of 20,000 shares of 10,000 shares of 0,00 shares of 30,00 shares of 0,00 shares of 0,00 shares of 20,00 shares of 0,000 shares of 0,000 shares of 0,00 shares of 0,000 shares of 0,000 shares of 0,000 shares of each shares of this case.

B. On September 28, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a request for correction with the Defendant for each of the above requests for correction on November 30, 2009, asserting that each of the above shares was not donated to the Defendant from thisA, this B, thisCC, and Mediation (hereinafter referred to as "A, etc.") and was merely returned to the Plaintiff’s name after the termination of the title trust, which was the initial Plaintiff’s ownership, and that the title trust was transferred to thisA, etc., after the termination of the title trust, and that the Plaintiff filed a request for correction with the Plaintiff for each of the above requests for correction of KRW 00 in total of the gift tax reported and paid by the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 45-2 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 9911, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply). However, the Defendant rejected each of the above requests for correction on November 30, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as “instant Disposition 1; 2.

C. On February 26, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal for revocation of each of the above measures to request correction. On March 18, 2011, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to revoke each of the measures to refuse a correction as to KRW 000 and KRW 000 of the gift tax on which thisCC was the donor. On March 18, 201, the Tax Tribunal dismissed each of the measures to refuse a correction as to KRW 00 of the gift tax on which thisA was the donor and KRW 00 of the gift tax on KRW 00 and KRW 00 of the gift tax on which thisB was the donor.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 and 2 evidence, Gap 18 evidence, Eul 3 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

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

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff was unable to conduct normal financial transactions or business operations under the Plaintiff’s name due to the occurrence of the bankruptcy on August 17, 1979. Accordingly, around 1983, the Plaintiff’s acquisition of shares in question, and the shares acquired while operating and acquiring an OO gas share in around 1988, and thereafter, made a title trust to EthA, etc... After that, the Plaintiff was able to conduct a normal financial transaction from March 1992 under the Plaintiff’s name, but was able to return the title of the above nominal shares to the Plaintiff. Since January 1, 2008, the Plaintiff sought the method of returning to the Plaintiff’s name due to the enormous oligopolistic shareholder’s acquisition tax, etc., which would have been incurred when the said title trust shares were not paid in kind, and thus, the said title trust shares were returned to the Plaintiff in return for acquisition due to the termination of the title trust. In addition to the gift tax pursuant to the provisions on the title trust donation of the title trust, the Plaintiff reported the gift tax deemed to be paid in cash to the Plaintiff 20.

Therefore, the gift contract of December 29, 2007, which served as the basis of the disposition of this case, took the form of "the termination of title trust" only in its form, and is null and void by means of a false indication or false conspiracy, as well as in its substance, it is obvious that it constitutes the restoration of the shares held in title trust as above, but each disposition of this case, which the defendant refused to request the correction of the plaintiff on a different premise, is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

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

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) Details of the acquisition of shares XX by thisA, thisB, and thisCC.

ThisA, EB, and thisCC acquired under its respective names from 1985 to 2002 through the process of increasing XX capital, etc. are as listed below:

Date and

Grounds

Issued Stocks

Moderns

Egnam-type

Newly Inserted by Presidential Decree No. 201

Rights to Immigration;

1

1983

Acceptance of Company

10,000 Shares

100,000 Shares

-

-

-

2

1984

Paid-in capital

60,000 Shares

700,000 Shares

-

-

-

3

1985

Paid-in capital

40,000 Shares

10,000 Shares

9,000 Shares

8,000 Shares

-

4

1986

Paid-in capital

130,000 Shares

240,000 Shares

20,000 Shares

-

-

5

1987

Paid-in capital

160,000 Shares

400,000 Shares

56,000 Shares

12,000 Shares

-

6

1989

Paid-in capital

200,000 Shares

600,000 Shares

40,000 Shares

10,000 Shares

-

7

1990

Paid-in capital

400,000 Shares

1,000,000 Shares

91,600 Shares

87,200 Shares

-

8

1993

Paid-in capital

400,000 Shares

1,400,000 Shares

86,640 Shares

46,880 Shares

-

9

1994

Paid-in capital

800,000 Shares

2,200,000 Shares

173,280 Shares

93,760 Shares

-

10

December 26, 1997

Paid-in capital

200,000 Shares

2,400,000 Shares

64,980 Shares

15,560 Shares

-

11

October 9, 1998

Free capital increase;

800,000 Shares

3,200,000 Shares

180,480 Shares

91,120 Shares

-

12

October 9, 1998

Paid-in capital

1,200,000 Shares

4,400,000 Shares

270,720 Shares

136,680 Shares

500,000 Shares

13

November 10, 1998

Paid-in capital

1,200,000 Shares

5,600,000 Shares

270,720 Shares

136,680 Shares

-

14

November 26, 1998

Paid-in capital

1,400,000 Shares

7,000,000 Shares

315,840 Shares

159,460 Shares

-

15

December 15, 1998

Paid-in capital

1,000,000 Shares

8,000,000 Shares

25,600 Shares

13,900 Shares

71,400 Shares

16

August 30, 1999

Paid-in capital

2,000,000 Shares

10,000,000 Shares

380,380 Shares

252,640 Shares

18,200 Shares

17

November 23, 1999

Paid-in capital

2,000,000 Shares

12,000,000 Shares

437,040 Shares

454,480 Shares

18,140 Shares

18

December 28, 1999

Paid-in capital

2,000,000 Shares

14,000,000 Shares

437,040 Shares

234,720 Shares

17,960 Shares

19

202

Acquisition by transfer

14,000,000 Shares

100,000 Shares

-

-

Total

14,000,000 Shares

3,159,320 Shares

1,853,080 Shares

825,700 Shares

2) Details on the acquisition of stocks of the OO city gas in thisB, thisCC, and DaD.

ThisB, CC, and DaD acquired under each of its names through the process of acquisition of OO urban gas and its capital increase between May 13, 198 and December 28, 2001 shall be listed in the following table:

Date and

Grounds

Issued Stocks

Moderns

Newly Inserted by Presidential Decree No. 201

Rights to Immigration;

Cho Jong-dae

1

may 13, 1980

Acceptance of Company

34,000 Shares

34,000 Shares

3,400 Shares

1,700 Shares

-

2

September 4, 1989

Capital increase

66,000 Shares

100,000 Shares

14,600 Shares

300 Shares

-

3

December 2, 1991

Capital increase

50,000 Shares

150,000 Shares

9,000 Shares

13,000 Shares

-

4

October 20, 1995

Capital increase

30,000 Shares

180,000 Shares

12,600 Shares

7,000 Shares

-

5

December 9, 1995

Acquisition by transfer

-

180,000 Shares

-

9,000 Shares

-

6

December 28, 2001

Acquisition by transfer

-

180,000 Shares

-

-

12,000 Shares

Total

180,000 Shares

39,600 Shares

31,000 Shares

12,000 Shares

3) Details and circumstances of the Plaintiff’s gift tax

A) On December 29, 2007, the Plaintiff reported and paid gift tax pursuant to each of the above donations to the Defendant on March 26, 2008, while: (a) the Plaintiff received each of the instant 1 shares (referred to as 2,264,698 shares in XX 3,159,320 shares held by A); and (b) the instant 2 shares (referred to as 2,268 shares in XX 1,853,080 shares held by B and 39,60 shares in OO gas); and (c) on March 26, 2008, the Plaintiff reported and paid gift tax pursuant to each of the above donations to the Defendant.

B) The gift contract made between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff at the time of the filing of the above gift tax return (Evidence 1) entered into between the Plaintiff and thisA (Evidence 2,264,698 (Evidence 1) into between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff is the ownership of thisA. The contract made between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff (Evidence 1) stipulates that “The gift contract made between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff shall be made to give the Plaintiff a gift to the Plaintiff on December 29, 2007,” and that “the gift contract made between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff (Evidence 1) shall be the ownership of thisB, and that “the gift contract shall be made between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff on December 29, 2007, shall be in excess of KRW 1,853,080 (Evidence 1) and KRW 39,600 (00).”

4) Details and circumstances of the Plaintiff’s request for correction

A) On September 28, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a claim for correction with the Defendant for refund of the gift tax (the donor’s KRW 000, KRW 000, KRW 000) reported and paid by the Plaintiff on March 26, 2008.

B) Each written confirmation of EA and EB Preparation (Evidence 4-1 and 2-2) submitted to the Defendant at the time of the filing of the above request for rectification include the following: “A” (a) is a title trust obtained from the Plaintiff when acquiring shares or OO gas shares in its own name; and thisA (B) is not a shareholder such as attending a shareholders’ meeting or receiving dividends at a shareholders’ meeting.”

5) The imposition and collection of gift tax on BB, etc.

A) During the period from January 7, 2004 to February 6, 2004, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office investigated the acquisition details of the above property and the total amount of KRW 000 ( KRW 600,000,000,000,000,000,0000,0000,0000,000 won received during the period from January 1, 1997 to December 31, 2003, and compared the acquisition details of the above property with those of KRW 15,00,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won and KRW 11,000,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won and KRW 113,04,00,00,00).

B) on March 31, 2008, XX approved the payment of KRW 000 of an officer’s special bonus to the Plaintiff at a regular general meeting of shareholders, and on April 20, 2009, the OO urban gas approved the payment of KRW 000 of an interim retirement allowance and KRW 000 of a special bonus to the Plaintiff during November 200.

C) From 1985 to 1985, thisB has operated a separate △△ General Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “△△ General Construction”), which is separate from its affiliates, as the auditor of OY gas from May 3, 198 to March 19, 2003, and as the non-standing auditor of YYYto Co., Ltd (hereinafter referred to as “YYto”) from June 5, 1992 to October 24, 2000. At present, △△ General Construction Co., Ltd. has been the largest shareholder and the representative director, who is the representative director, and is the representative director of △△ General Development Co., Ltd.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 2 and 4 evidence, Gap 6, 14, 17, 45, 46, 47-1, 2, Gap 48-1, 2, 3, Eul 1, 3, 1, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10-1 through 4 of evidence Nos. 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(i) the burden of proof in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a disposition rejecting rectification

Where a taxpayer contests the legality of a disposition by a tax authority, the relevant tax authority is, in principle, responsible for claiming and proving the legality of the relevant disposition. However, where a taxpayer claims the tax authority to correct the reported tax base and tax amount by asserting that the reported tax base and tax amount are erroneous, it is reasonable to deem that the taxpayer is liable for claiming and proving that the initial tax base and tax amount were wrong.

In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff reported and paid gift tax on the instant shares, which were originally donated from thisA and thisB, but thereafter, each of the instant shares was not originally donated to the Plaintiff, but was merely the Plaintiff’s ownership, that was, the title trust was terminated, and that was, returned to the Plaintiff’s future name, and thus, filed a claim for correction of claim for refund of gift tax already paid on the ground that the said return was erroneous. Accordingly, as alleged by the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s refusal of the above claim for correction was unlawful, and accordingly, the burden of proving that each of the instant shares was not the donation from thisA and B, but the initial title trust was made to thisA and thisB as the Plaintiff’s ownership.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff: (a) acknowledged that the source of funds to acquire each of the instant shares in this case under the name of this and this B is the Plaintiff; (b) the donor is the Plaintiff and the actual owner of each of the instant shares; and (c) if not, there is no reason to transfer their own shares without any consideration to the Plaintiff; and (d) it is the Plaintiff to receive dividends and exercise shareholder’s rights; and (d) in the relevant criminal judgment of the Plaintiff and its affiliate, the Plaintiff made up for the external funds of this case and embezzled approximately KRW 000 out of the funds to pay for the capital increase with KRW x in the name of the Plaintiff and its affiliate; and (c) in light of all the circumstances, the actual owner of each of the instant shares is the Plaintiff, and this is merely the Plaintiff’s disposal of the instant shares, and thus, the Plaintiff and its affiliate are merely the Plaintiff’s disposal of the instant shares.

2) As to the Disposition No. 1 of this case

In light of the following facts and circumstances, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is difficult to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s allegation, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and instead, the shares No. 1 of this case appears to have been acquired with its own funds. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim for correction of gift tax on the premise that the Plaintiff’s acquisition of shares No. 1 of this case constitutes the return of shares trusted in trust to thisA is without merit, and that the Plaintiff’s claim for correction of gift tax on the premise that the acquisition of shares No. 1 of this case constitutes the return of shares trusted in trust to thisA is legitimate, and that the disposition rejecting the above claim for correction is legitimate in light of the same purport.

A) The Plaintiff did not keep financial data, etc. with respect to the source of the acquisition fund of XX shares acquired by thisA between 1985 and 1994, and there was no objective data to confirm that the source of the acquisition fund is the Plaintiff. However, with respect to about about about about about 2,40,000 shares (the shares 1 of this case) that are acquired through this AA due diligence from around 1997 to around 197, the Plaintiff recognized that the foreign capital of the Plaintiff and its affiliated companies created by the direction of the Plaintiff and its affiliated companies was the source of the acquisition fund, and that they are the Plaintiff, in fact, the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff. According to these circumstances, it is sufficiently recognized that the source of the acquisition fund of the shares 1 of this case is the Plaintiff.

However, according to the facts stated in Gap evidence 1 to 4, the plaintiff and this case's 200 won and 00 won out of 00 out of 5 shares were found to have been convicted of criminal facts such as embezzlement of 00 won under the following name from December 1997 to December 199 (the above 2004Guhap445, 628 (combined)). The Seoul Central District Court's 2004No204No2368, Dec. 8, 2004, and the court of final appeal found that the defendant's 1 and 204 No. 1 were not an affiliate company's above to have acquired shares under the above 1's name and 2's 3's 6's 5's 6's 6's 207 'the 2007 'the 2007 'the 2007 'the 2007 'the 2007 '.

B) Also, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments stated in Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 14, Eul evidence 2-1 and Eul evidence 1 and 2, it is hard to view that the above shares were acquired by the plaintiff 1 and the defendant 1 and the defendant 2 were the head of the Construction Headquarters and the head of the Gyeonggi District Office, from March 24, 1993 to January 24, 2005, and that the above shares were acquired by the plaintiff 1 and the defendant 1 and the defendant 1 and the defendant 2 were the defendant 1 and the defendant 1 and the defendant 2 were the defendant 1 and the defendant 1 and the defendant 9 were the defendant 1 and the defendant 1 and the defendant 2 were the defendant 1 and the defendant 1 and the defendant 2 were the defendant 1 and the defendant 1 and the defendant 9 were the defendant 1 and the defendant 2 were the defendant 1 and the defendant 9 were the defendant 1 and the defendant 2 were the defendant 1 and the defendant 1 and the defendant 90.

C) Even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, since around 1992, it was possible to conduct normal financial transactions and economic activities. However, there was no obvious reason to acquire new shares acquired in the name of thisA prior to around 1998 and around 1999, that the Plaintiff could not continue to engage in title trust due to the issue of deemed acquisition tax to be borne when it falls under an oligopolistic shareholder (if it is deemed that the Plaintiff was unable to continue to engage in title trust due to the issue of deemed acquisition tax to be borne when it comes to fall under an oligopolistic shareholder, it seems that the acquisition of each of the relevant new shares does not immediately constitute an oligopolistic shareholder.

D) It is difficult to recognize that the testimony of Gap 7-10 evidence and the witness OO alone by the statements and the testimony of the witness O alone had been exercised on behalf of the plaintiff as a shareholder on behalf of the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Rather, thisA seems to have been continuously participating in the process of management and decision-making in XX since it was operated with the plaintiff since the date of acquisition XX, while operating it together with the plaintiff.

E) As seen earlier, insofar as the source of funds to acquire shares of this case cannot be deemed as the Plaintiff, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Plaintiff’s shares are owned by the Plaintiff and the shares held in title trust with this case, solely on the grounds that the remaining circumstances cited by the Plaintiff, i.e., the written confirmation (Evidence A 4-1) that the shares of this case were originally owned by the Plaintiff, and that the shares of this case were held in title trust as the Plaintiff’s ownership, and that there is no obvious reason for the Plaintiff to keep the share certificates of this case 1, or that there is no considerable reason for this to donate shares without any consideration.

3) As to the Disposition No. 2 of this case

A) The Plaintiff, as the first Plaintiff’s shares, was a title trust with BB as the Plaintiff’s shares.

On the other hand, the Defendant has already been investigated by the tax authority as to the portion of the source of the acquisition fund of the instant shares for the instant shares 2 by acquiring KRW 000,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,000,00,00,00,00,00,00,00.

In the lower court, we examine whether the instant shares were initially owned by the Plaintiff, and whether the claim for correction, claiming the refund of the amount of gift tax, violates the doctrine of speech and good faith and the principle of good faith.

B) Whether the shares No. 2 were the shares held in title trust with thisB

In full view of the following facts and circumstances revealed through the facts acknowledged as seen earlier and the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff acquired the shares of this case 2 and held title trust to B. The evidence presented by the Defendant alone is sufficient to deem the above recognition as the source of acquiring the shares of this case 2 as B, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff’s shares of this case 2 were returned to B after the termination of the title trust, not the Plaintiff’s donation from B, but the first Plaintiff was a title trust to B. Therefore, the gift tax on the premise that the Plaintiff was a gift of this case 2 from B does not exist, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for correction of this part of the Plaintiff’s claim for refund of the gift tax was unlawful.

(1) As seen earlier, even if thisB acquired shares during the above period from January 1, 197 to December 31, 2003, 00 won, which was deemed insufficient as the result of the investigation into the acquisition of shares and real estate, were deemed to have been donated by the Plaintiff, and the amount of the gift tax was fully paid without any objection to the imposition of gift tax on April 16, 2004, the above amount of the gift tax is related to the property acquired during the above period of investigation (from January 1, 1997 to December 31, 203), so it is difficult to view that the above amount of the gift tax was less than KRW 257,840, and the amount of gift tax was less than KRW 30,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 shares were less than KRW 30,000,000,000.

(2) Also, according to the fact that this BB’s explanation of the source of the above acquisition fund was conducted by means of labor, dividend, interest, capital gains, and deposit balance, etc. during the above investigation period, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff acquired the above funds from the 257,840 shares acquired before 197 among the shares No. 2, and the 39,60 shares of the OE Gas (the entire shares). Of the above 000 won explained, the dividend income related to the 2 shares is also included among the above 00 won, and the method of investigation is merely a short amount of explanation of the acquisition of the assets and the source of the funds by comparing the acquisition of the 90,000,000 won and the 9,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000.

(3) As seen earlier, the Plaintiff used approximately KRW 00,00, out of approximately 00,000, out of KRW 200,000, from December 1997 to December 2, 199 as funds for acquiring shares of the Plaintiff and its affiliate companies. As such, the Plaintiff appears to have been subject to examination in the Central Investigation Division of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office around February 2004, even though the Plaintiff actually owned the largest of the shares among the shares at issue, it appears that the △ Construction Industry, which operated, was subject to restriction on the acquisition of shares at issue, and that it was difficult to view the Plaintiff’s shares as its shares as its relative B, KK, and this would have been subject to the Plaintiff’s capital increase under the name of its affiliate company’s name, e.g., e., e., Postal Research Institute and its affiliate company’s e., e., e., its affiliate company’s e.g., e., its e., e., 20000., company shares.

(4) Although the Plaintiff is not a shareholder of XX or OO gas, but is not an executive officer, such as a representative director, as seen earlier, the XX approved that the Plaintiff will pay KRW 000 to the Plaintiff with the special bonus for executive officers on March 31, 2008, and the OO gas to pay KRW 000 to the Plaintiff with the special bonus on April 20, 2009, and there is no particular reason to pay the Plaintiff a large amount of money.

(5) Unlike the fact that thisA was established with the Plaintiff and actively involved in the management of XX by taking charge of the duties of the representative director, the head of construction headquarters, etc., and by raising and managing the extra-party funds, this B is deemed to have served as an auditor of the OY gas from May 3, 198 to March 19, 2003, and as a non-standing auditor from June 5, 1992 to October 24, 200, and it does not seem to have exercised the authority as a shareholder, such as participating in the management or decision-making process of the XX or OOS gas.

(6) The global income of BB reported for six years from 1994 to 1999 is equivalent to the total amount of 000 won (the amount of income earned after the global income tax deduction is equivalent to KRW 000), and the annual average income is not more than KRW 000, as well as the income is included in the case of this case where the title trust is disputed due to dividend income, interest income, etc., and it is also included in the case of this case from the stocks of this case where the title trust is disputed. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that at the time this case’s value to B was 9.46 billion won in total and 9.4 billion won.

C) Whether it violates the principle of good faith and the principle of good faith

The application of the principle of trust and good faith to the tax law that strongly acts on the basis of the principle of legality under the principle of no taxation without law is limited to cases where it is deemed necessary to protect specific trust even if the person liable for tax payment sacrifices the principle of legality. In particular, in cases where the person liable for tax payment commits an act contrary to his past speech and behavior against the tax authority, the person shall be subject to a disadvantageous disposition such as deprivation of benefits such as tax reduction and exemption under tax law, various additional taxes, and penal provisions under tax law, etc., and the tax authority shall have the right to on-site investigation in the superior position against the taxpayer, as a matter of principle, and the burden of proving the legality of the tax disposition is against the tax authority, the application of the principle of trust and good faith to the taxpayer shall be extremely limited, and shall not be expanded and interpreted. To apply the principle of trust and good faith to the taxpayer, the behavior was objectively contradictory, and the trust of the tax authority resulting therefrom should be protected (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Du1798Du1686, Feb. 268, 20007.

In light of the above legal principles, since the Plaintiff received the shares of this case 2 from B and received the gift tax by itself, it was returned to the termination of title trust instead of the shares received the gift tax after the lapse of two years from 2 years thereafter, it is difficult to view it as a serious act of good faith to the extent that it would be in violation of the principle of good faith or the principle of good faith. The Defendant’s above assertion cannot be accepted, since it is difficult to accept the Defendant’s assertion on the gift tax, even if the Defendant trusted and taxed the gift tax as it is, it cannot be viewed as a trust worthy of protection.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim as to the disposition No. 2 of this case is justified, and the plaintiff's claim as to the disposition No. 1 of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.