Seoul Administrative Court-2015-Gu Partnership-5080 ( October 30, 2015)

There is no ground to acknowledge that the Plaintiff received title trust for the shares of this case

Since there is no ground to acknowledge that the Plaintiff agreed on title trust at the time of issuing new shares, the instant disposition is unreasonable.

Seoul High Court 2015Nu67276

Park AA

00. Head of tax office

July 8, 2016

August 12, 2016

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant revoked each disposition of KRW 190,867,50 (including additional tax of KRW 36,00,000 and KRW 64,867,500 for additional tax for unfaithful return) and KRW 186,574,500 (including additional tax of KRW 36,00,000 for unfaithful return and additional tax of KRW 60,574,50 for unfaithful return) for the Plaintiff on April 1, 2014.

2. Purport of appeal

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

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

This judgment is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition of the following matters, and thus, it is based on Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(1) On the second and fifth pages, "(1)" shall be added to "(5)".

(2) The 3rd parallel 6th parallel 6th parallel 6th parallel 6th parallel 6th parallel 8th parallel 8th parallel 6th parallel 6th parallel 6th parallel 6th parallel

(3) On the 4th page 18, "Insufficient" was added to "(the defendant argued to the effect that there was an implied title trust between the plaintiff and the Lee Jin-jin in relation to the second and third shares of this case, since the plaintiff implicitly consented to the use of the plaintiff's name and comprehensively delegated all the authority to this to the Lee Jin-jin." However, in light of the following circumstances, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and the above assertion also cannot be accepted).

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.