The data presented by the Plaintiff alone is difficult to recognize the nominal owner of the instant shares as the actual owner.

The disposition that the disposition authority imposed on the Plaintiff by deeming the Plaintiff as the actual owner is just and illegal in violation of the jurisdiction, because it is difficult to recognize the nominal owner of the instant shares as the actual owner.

2013Guhap7733 Revocation of Disposition, etc. of Imposition of Capital Gains Tax

1. KimA 2. KimB 3.CC Industry Corporation

1. The director of the regional tax office; 2. The director of the regional tax office; and

October 1, 2013

November 21, 2013

1. On August 1, 2010, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office revoked the notification of change in the income amount of Plaintiff KimB and OOOO personnel by the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office against PlaintiffCC Industry Co., Ltd.

2. Each claim by Plaintiffs KimA and KimB, and all claims by the Plaintiff’s Director of Ansan Industrial Co., Ltd. are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the PlaintiffCC Industry Co., Ltd and the Seoul Regional Tax Office is assessed against the Plaintiffs, the part arising between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant Seongbuk Tax Office, and the head of Ansan Tax Office, respectively.

Cheong-gu Office

The imposition of OOOO on August 1, 2007 by the Head of Seongbuk-gu Tax Office against Plaintiff KimA, the imposition of OOOOO on the gift tax of 2007, the imposition of the gift tax of 2007, and the imposition of the gift tax of OOOOO on the Plaintiff KimB. The imposition of the gift tax of 2007 shall be revoked by the Head of Ansan-gu Tax Office on August 2, 2010 against the PlaintiffCC Industry Co., Ltd., the imposition of the corporate tax of 2007 and the imposition of the securities transaction tax of OOOOOO for the business year of 207.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The relationship between the parties

(1) The plaintiff KimA is the representative director of the plaintiff KimB, and the plaintiff KimB is the son of the plaintiff KimB, and the plaintiff KimB was established as the main business around December 1999, such as sports and events management, and the provision of broadcasting programs. The plaintiff KimB owned 24.67% of the DNA shares as of the end of the business year 2005, and transferred all the shares on October 31, 2006, and acquired 15.84% of the 15.84% shares in the business year 2007. Meanwhile, the plaintiff KimB was established as the joint representative director of the plaintiff KimB from August 1, 2003 to December 18, 2005, and the plaintiff KimFC was transferred as the plaintiff KimF Dom Investment Co., Ltd. and the plaintiff KimF 2, 2005 to the 25.18.2, 2005.18.2, 2005.

1) Issues (1) Shares

According to the statement of stock change in the FF capital increase issued on March 25, 2005, the Plaintiff KimA acquired 60,000 shares of 60,000 shares in the FF capital increase issued on the aggregate of OOO per share (hereinafter referred to as the “stocks”), the KimA transferred 30,000 shares each to the Nowon and HaH (hereinafter referred to as “NoG, etc.”) in 2006, and then transferred the shares to the corporation III media (hereinafter referred to as “III media”); and 2) the issue-based shares

" CC산업은 2006. 2. 17. FFF의 유상증자에 참여하여 50,000주를 주당 OOOO원씩 합계 OOOO원에 취득하였다(이하쟁점①주식'이라 한다) 주식변동상황명세서에 따르면, CC산업은 2006년 위 주식을 정JJ 외 7인(김KK, 김LL, 우MM, 유NN, 정PP, 최QQ, 허RR, 이하정JJ 외 7인'이라고만 한다)에게 양도하고, 정JJ 외 7인은 2007년 위 주식을 III미디어에 양도한 것으로 기재되어 있다.", 다. 김BB의 주식양도

KimB and 3 others (GGS, ET, LU) transferred FF shares 60,000 shares to third media in 2007.

(d) a taxation disposition;

1) From March 8, 2010 to July 2, 2010, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office: (a) investigated the change of shares in FF with respect to the transfer of shares on July 2, 2010; and (b) transferred the management rights and 170,000 shares in total (5.19% of the total issued shares 308,000 shares) to OOG (OOO) and the management rights to FF to FOG; and (c) KimA notified the relevant office of taxation of the taxation data by taking over shares to FOG, through Nowon, etc.

(2) On March 26, 2007, the director of the Sungbuk District Tax Office received 70 GCC’s transfer income tax (the total amount of return and payment of the stock transfer income tax, and capital gains tax such as NowonGG) from 00,000 won (the total amount of KRW 70,000 per share) from 70,000 won (the total amount of KRW 70,000,000) from 7,000,000,000 won of 7,000 won of 20,000 won of 7,000 won of 7,000,000 won of 20,000 won of 20,000 won of 7,000 won of 20,000 won of 20,000 won of 7,000 won of 0,000 won of 7,000 won of 2,000 won of 3,07.

5) On December 26, 2012, the Plaintiffs, TradeG, and Court of Justice were dissatisfied therewith and filed a request with the Tax Tribunal for a trial. On December 26, 2012, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to revoke the imposition of each gift tax on Nowon, G, etc., and Plaintiff KimA, the joint and several taxpayers, and to dismiss the remainder of the claims, on the grounds that the share transfer contract for Nowon, etc. and for 7 other parties, from the Tax Tribunal, does not constitute a processing contract or a title trust.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence 1 through 3, 5, 8 through 16, Eul evidence 1 through 3, 14 through 15, and the purport of the whole pleadings

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

A. The plaintiff's assertion

DD guarantees investment returns equivalent to 12% per annum in the KimA andCC industry, and the investment principal and investment returns are paid in lump sum three years after the completion date of the payment for capital increase by KimA’s capital increase, but entered into an investment agreement with KimA andCC industry to receive a call option to purchase the FF stocks in each share, and exercised the call option immediately before transferring the FF stocks and management rights to the media in accordance with the investment agreement. DD transferred the stocks to FFF, ② transferred the stocks to FFF, and used the difference between the price for exercising the call option and the price for the transfer of stocks to the FF, and used them for liquidation of the off-the-counter liabilities. Accordingly, since the issues (i) the subject of stock transfer is DD, each of the dispositions of this case on different premise is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form. The entry in the relevant statutes are as follows.

(c) Fact of recognition;

“1) On behalf of the FF shareholders on February 28, 2007, thisT concluded a sales contract with the FF shareholders on a total of 170,00 shares of the FF (Plaintiff KimB 30,000 shares, KimS 10,000 shares, ETT 5,000 shares, maximumU 15,00 shares, issues ① 60,000 shares, issues ② 50,00 shares, and 5.19% shares) to transfer the management rights of the FF shareholders to the OF shareholders (hereinafter “the instant stock transfer contract”), and (2) the Plaintiff Company set out a sales contract with the FF shareholders on a total of 170,00 shares, and (3) the balance of the outstanding shares transfer contract with the 30,00,000 shares, and (2) the 307,00,000 shares transfer and sale of the 37,000 shares shares, respectively, to the 307,006,06G shares transfer date.

"3) NGG, etc. and JungJ et al. were officers and employees of VV Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as VVV), and LW are the operators of the above company. VV was paid OB fees from the purchase price of the instant stock transfer contract in return for the loan to the transferor under the name of the transferor under the instant stock transfer contract on March 26, 2007. The Plaintiff KimB, on December 11, 2006, completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on the land and buildings owned by LW, the debtor DD and 330-283 site and buildings owned by LW, the maximum amount of debt amount, and the registration of the establishment of a mortgage was revoked on March 29, 207 due to the waiver of part of Kim Jong on March 28, 2007, Plaintiff 4BS’s punishment was Plaintiff 6BS.

5) With respect to the purchase price of the instant stock transfer contract, this TT received the down payment amount of OOOOO on February 15, 2007 from the third media to its account on March 26, 2007, respectively. This TT paid the said money to Plaintiff KimA a total sum of OOOOO and OOOOOOO in the title of the stock transfer price and interest, and other KimB, KimB, KimS, and LU received the shares of the said company by participating in the three media’s capital increase with the balance of the purchase price as OOOO as part of the purchase price.

6) The purpose of Defendant 1’s regional tax office’s investigation is as follows: (a) the actual owner of the FB 1 was KimB; (b) the Plaintiff 1 and Kim YB ; (c) the Plaintiff 2 stated that the repayment of loan and loan was difficult; and (d) the Plaintiff 1 and Kim B 3 were to participate in the increase of capital; and (e) the Plaintiff 1 and Lee Do-B were to transfer the FF shares to the 3rd media, and (e) the Plaintiff 1 and Lee Do-B were to receive the payment of the loan money from the 1stm of the 7th of the 7th of the 0th of the 1st of the 207th of the 1st of the 1st of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 1st of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 1st of the 2nd of the 3th of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 3th of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 3th of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 3rd.

D. Determination

1) We examine the issue ① and ② whether KimA andCC industry are the subject of stock transfer.

살피건대, 위 인정사실에서 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정을 고려할 때 원고 김BB이 주도하여 김AA과 CC산업 소유의 쟁점①, ②주식을 매도하고 매매대금을 분배하였으며, 원고 김AA과 CC산업에 지급한 금원을 제외한 나머지 금원을 자신의 사채 등을 변제하는 등으로 사용하였다고 봄이 상당하고, DDD와 김AA, CC산업간 투자수익 약정이 있다는 취지의 갑 제4, 7호증의 각 기재 및 증인 이★★의 일부 증언은 믿기 어렵고 달리 이를 인정할 만한 증거가 없다.

① In light of the statements made by those in the name of the Plaintiff KimA, NowonGG, and the statements made by the Plaintiff KimB, etc., the Plaintiff KimA and theCC industry participated in the FFF’s capital increase with the request of the Plaintiff KimB, and the FF stocks and management rights were transferred by the Plaintiff KimB, and the Plaintiff KimB appears to have distributed the total amount of the capital increase. In other words, taking the lead in all transactions, the Plaintiff KimB is not DD but Plaintiff KimB.

② Plaintiff KimB did not have DD shares more than 15.84% formally at the time of the sale of shares. However, Plaintiff KimB operated DD by attracting investment in DD or joint and several liability for VV, etc. In addition, it was necessary to sell FF shares and repay debts due to the loan borrowed from investors in relation to the operation of DD operation funds.

③ 원고 김BB의 지시에 따라 이TT는 주식 양도대금을 수령하고, 원고 김AA이나 CC산업에 주식대금을 지급하였으며, 나머지를 김BB의 사채 변제, DDD의 사채 변제, 운영자금 등에 사용하였다. 이★★는 원고 김BB의 처남으로 그 신뢰관계를 생각하면, 이TT가 원고 김AA이나 CC산업을 대리하여 주식 양도계약을 체결하고 주식 양도대금을 지급받는 것이 이례적이라고 할 수 없다

④ CC산업의 이사회결의서(갑 제6호증)는 대표이사 김AA, 이사 이◇◇, 이사 심◆◆ 3인이 참석하여 작성된 것이고, 기재된 날짜에 실제 이사회 결의가 있었는지 날짜를 증명할 아무런 증거가 없어 실제 작성일에 이사회결의가 있었는지 의문이다. 또한, 원고 김AA과 김BB이 부자 사이인 점, 원고 김AA은 최초 조사시 원고 김BB이 알아서 처리하였다고만 진술하고 있을 뿐 DDD에 자신의 주식을 매도하였다거나 투자 약정에 관하여 아무런 진술도 하지 않은 점, DDD는 FFF에 아무런 투자도 하지 않았고, 부채가 과다하여 투자수익을 보장할 만한 여력도 없었던 점, VVV에 대한 채무 는 DDD의 채무이기도 하지만 연대보증 등으로 원고 김BB이 개인적으로 부담하는 채무도 상당한 점, DDD가 자신의 자금으로 원고 김AA이나 CC산업에 콜옵션 행사에 따른 주식 양수대금을 지급한 것도 아니고, 투자수익보장약정도 만기에 원금과 이자를 한꺼번에 보장하기로 하는 것이어서 실제 지급된 주식대금은 전혀 없는 점, 원고 김AA과 CC산업의 매도계약서도 소급하여 작성된 점 등을 고려하면, 투자수익 약정이 실제로 있었다고는 도저히 믿기 어렵다.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' arguments are not accepted on different premises.

2) We examine the Defendant’s director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office’s notice of change in the income amount to the PlaintiffCC industry.

According to Articles 9(1), 12, and 66(1) and (2) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8831, Dec. 31, 2007; hereinafter the same), the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20108, Feb. 22, 2008; hereinafter referred to as the “former Act”) provides that the head office or the head office of a regional tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment shall determine or correct the tax base and the amount of corporate tax. Article 67 of the former Act provides for the disposition of income under the premise that the head office or the head office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment (the head office or the principal office on the corporate registry) has the authority to decide or correct the corporate tax base pursuant to Article 66 of the former Act (the head office or the head office on the corporate registry), and that the head office or the head office having jurisdiction over the Seoul Regional Tax Office has the authority to notify the head office or the head office under the jurisdiction (the head office).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffCC industry's claim against the defendant director of Seoul Regional Tax Office is justified. The plaintiffCC industry's claim against the defendant director of Ansan Tax Office and the plaintiff KimA and KimB's claim are dismissed as all are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.