Whether shares are held in trust for the purpose of tax avoidance

It is reasonable to view that the name was entrusted for the purpose of tax avoidance rather than stolen in light of the fact that the name was registered as a director of another corporation whose name is a substantial company, the fact that the trust received benefits, and the fact that the trust continues to maintain a certain relationship with the trust.

Donation of title trust property under Article 45-2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

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. The defendant shall revoke the disposition of imposition of KRW 111,680,000 on October 17, 2004 against the plaintiff of the year 2002.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. around the end of 2001, 262,00 shares issued by ○○ Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “non-party company”) (hereinafter referred to as “non-party company”) (hereinafter referred to as ○○○○○○○○ 86,00 shares, Kim○○ 26,00 shares, Kim○○ 26,00 shares, Kim○○ 90,000 shares, Hong○ 90, Hong○ 60,00 shares, and Hong○ 60,00 shares) were transferred. On August 21, 2002, she agreed to transfer the above shares to ○○○ on August 22, 2002, on the part of 86,00 shares under the Plaintiff’s name, 90,000 shares under the Plaintiff’s name, 26,00 shares, 60,000 shares in the name of 6,00 shares in the name of 6,00 shares.

B. As to this, the Defendant deemed that Park○-○ held the instant shares in title trust with the Plaintiff for the purpose of tax avoidance, and calculated the value of the instant shares with the face value of KRW 5,000 per share, deeming that Park○-○ was a donation to the Plaintiff by the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 41-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6780, Dec. 18, 2002). On October 17, 2004, the Defendant issued the instant disposition imposing KRW 111,680,000 on the Plaintiff.

(In fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 2, 8, Gap evidence 14-2, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 3-1, Eul evidence 3-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

The court's explanation on this part is as stated in Paragraph 2 of Article 8 of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, with the exception of adding "Evidence Nos. 15-4, 11, 12, 18, 19, 16-3, 16-1 through 4 of the Evidence Nos. 15-2 of the judgment of the court of first instance, "No. 15-9, 10, 13, 20 of the Evidence No. 11 of the Evidence No. 4-2 of the judgment of the court of first instance", "No. 16-1, 4 of the Evidence No. 15-2 of the Evidence No. 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance" to "No. 15-3, 16-3, 4-1, and 4 of the Evidence No. 15-2 of the judgment of the court of first instance.

3. Conclusion

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

[Insuwon District Court 2006Guhap218 ( November 22, 2006)]

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 111,680,00 on October 17, 2004 against the Plaintiff is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. A. around the end of 200 on 262,00 shares issued by ○○ Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “non-party company”) (hereinafter referred to as “non-party company”), which are all the shares issued by ○○○○○○○ Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “non-party company”), were transferred to 262,00 shares (hereinafter referred to as Kim○○○○○○ 86,00 shares, Kim○○ 26,000 shares, leap○ 90,000 shares, and Hong○○ 60,000 shares, under one’s name on March 4, 2003, 86,000 shares, under the name of the Plaintiff, 90,000 shares (hereinafter referred to as “the shares in this case”), and 60,000 shares in the name of ○○○, a six-year classal shares, but on August 2002 and the above shares were transferred to the same person.

B. As to this, the Defendant: (a) deemed that Park○-○ was the title trust of the instant shares to the Plaintiff for the purpose of tax avoidance; and (b) calculated the value of the shares with the face value of KRW 50 million; and (c) on October 17, 2004, imposed a gift tax of KRW 111,680,000 on the Plaintiff for the year 202.

(In fact that there is no dispute, Gap 2, Gap 5-1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff did not have been under title trust with the shares of this case from Park○-○, and the Plaintiff merely gave his seal impression and seal impression to Park○-○, the actual owner of the non-party company, which was registered as a director at the time, for the registration of the resignation of director. The Plaintiff was not registered as a director, but registered as a director, and the Plaintiff was not fully involved in the process of acquiring or transferring the shares of this case, and the Plaintiff was not fully involved in the affairs or money in the process of acquiring or transferring the shares of this case, and thus, the instant disposition of this case was unlawful on a different premise.

B. Determination

갑2호증, 갑3호증의 1내지 3, 갑12, 13호증, 갑14호증의 1 내지 4, 갑15호증의 1 내지 21, 갑16호증의 1 내지 10호증의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, ①원고는 2001.10.30.경 설립된 주식회사 ○○○○○○개발의 법인등기부에 이사로 등재되었고, 소외 회사의 법인등기부에 2001.12.12.자 이사 취임등기와 2003.4.10.자 해임등기가 경료되어 있었던 사실,②김○○도 주식회사 ○○○○○○개발의 이사로 등재되었고, 소외 회사의 법인등기부에 원고와 같은 날짜에 이사 취임 및 해임등기가 경료되었으며, 박○○도 주식회사 ○○○○○○개발의 법인등기부에 감사로 등재되었고, 소외회사의 법인등기부에도 2003.2.5.자 감사 취임등기와 2003.4.10.자 해임등기가 경료된 사실, ③박○○는 위 법인들의 등기부에 대표이사 또는 이사로 등재되었고, 실제로도 위 법인들의 사주였던 사실, ④2002.12.경 주식회사 ○○○○○○개발의 주주명부상 원고 명의의 주식은 15,000주(25%)이고, 박○○ 명의의 주식은 20,000주(33.33%)인 사실, ⑤같은 시기 주식회사 ○○○○스의 주주명부상 원고 명의의 주식은 200,155주(9.01%)이고, 박○○ 명의의 주식은 901,857주(40.58%)인 사실, ⑥원고가 2001.경부터 2003.경까지 사이에 위 법인들로부터 4,000여만 원을 급여로 지급받은 사실, ⑦원고가 이 사건과 관련하여 2004.12.경 박○○를 사기 혐읨로, 2005.6.경 소외회사의 주식 양수도에 관여한 신○○을 사문서부정행사 혐의로 각 고소하였으나, 검사는 2005.2.15. 박○○에 대하여 소재불명을 이유로 기소중지 처분을, 2005.7.15. 신○○에 대하여 같은 이유로 참고인중지 처분을 한 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

In light of the above facts, each entry of No. 11-2, which seems to be consistent with the fact that the name of the plaintiff was stolen in relation to the acquisition of the shares in this case, the plaintiff was registered as a director for other corporations whose actual gambling had been made, and the total period was not shorter than the total period, the plaintiff seems to have continued to maintain a certain relationship with the gambling ○○, such as receiving wages from the above corporations, and the investigation into the gambling ○, etc. has not been completed, it is not easy to believe that each entry of No. 11-1, No. 11-2, No. 7, 8, 9, No. 10, No. 12, No. 13, No. 12, No. 13, No. 14-3, and No. 4 was merely merely merely a material showing the transaction relation of Park○○○, or merely a material prepared by the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the allegation otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is groundless.

2. Conclusion

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