Daegu District Court 2012Guhap388 (Law No. 13, 2012)

Cho High-depth201Gu2507 ( November 24, 2011)

title trust for the purpose of tax avoidance

(See the first instance judgment) The purpose of the title trust is merely to claim that the title trust was entrusted with convenience in the performance of the construction work, and does not present evidence as to what kind of assistance in the performance of the construction work, and rather, there is a tax avoidance purpose of global income

2012Nu1687 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

CHAPTER A

Head of Namgu Tax Office

Daegu District Court Decision 2012Guhap388 Decided July 13, 2012

January 11, 2013

January 25, 2013

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the gift tax reverted to the plaintiff on December 8, 2010 by the defendant to the plaintiff on December 8, 2010.

The imposition of KRW 00 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

This Court's reasoning concerning this case is as follows: (a) the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance court is the same as the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance except for the second instance court's application of the second instance court's application of the main text of Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

(2) The Defendant, and the fact that the instant shares were opened in the name of the Plaintiff in the name of the Plaintiff is merely a mere change of the title trustee, and there is no difference between the title truster and BB’s tax burden before and after the transfer, and thus, even if the instant shares were opened in the name of the Plaintiff in the name of the Plaintiff, so long as the instant shares were opened in the name of the Plaintiff, which was the actual owner of the instant shares, pursuant to the intent to trust the instant shares in the name of the Plaintiff, the substance of the instant shares was completed by the title truster B, who was the actual owner of the instant shares, upon termination of the title trust agreement with the former title trustee, and received the return of the instant shares, and concluded a title trust agreement with the Plaintiff on the instant shares and entrusted the instant shares to the Plaintiff (in this case, the instant shares were opened in the name of Chapter B in the name of the title trustee in the name of the headCC, and then, the transfer was omitted in the middle of the title trust process to the Plaintiff, and there was no reason to determine whether the instant shares were any new shares for termination of title trust.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance dismissing the plaintiff's claim of this case is just and there is no ground for appeal by the plaintiff, and it is so decided as per Disposition.