Seoul Administrative Court 201Guhap14661 ( October 14, 2012)

title trust termination other than stock donation.

It is difficult to view that it constitutes an act of good faith to the extent that it is against the principle of good faith solely on the ground that it is seeking to refund the amount of gift tax already paid, and it is difficult to view that it constitutes an act of good faith to the extent that it is against the principle of good faith merely because it is merely a payment of the small amount of income tax and did not have refluent power to hold shares.

2012Nu19399. Disposition rejecting a request for rectification

- Appellants

IsaA

Head of Yongsan Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2011Guhap14661 decided June 14, 2012

December 12, 2012

February 6, 2013

1. Revocation of the part against the plaintiff falling under the order to revoke the following among the judgment of the first instance;

The relevant part shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence.

2. Judgment

A. Whether the disposition No. 1 of this case is legitimate

1) First of all, the instant shares are not owned by thisB but those owned by thisB, and whether the Plaintiff was title trust with thisB. In light of the following facts, it is difficult to see that the Plaintiff was under the name of this case, and that the Plaintiff was under the name of this case, and that the Plaintiff was under the name of this case, and that the Plaintiff was under the name of this case, for which the Plaintiff was under the name of this case, and that it was under the name of this case, and that the Plaintiff was under the name of this case, for which the Plaintiff was under the name of this case, 3159,320 shares acquired from 199 to 28 December 29, 199, and that it was under the name of this case, and that the Plaintiff was under the name of this case, 307, 10, 12, 25, 27, and 55 (including household numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), and that the Plaintiff was under the name of this case, 31, 2015, and 29.B shares.

① The Plaintiff is in custody of the share certificates No. 1 of this case (Evidence No. 4 of this case and the evidence before).

② From among the shares reported on December 29, 2007 by the Plaintiff Easterns, East Easterns, and HaH, the shares of this case were donated on December 29, 2007, and the shares of this case were made in a similar manner by using a similar contract with the same person (Evidence 1, No. 1, and No. 1) and the shares reported by the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff was donated on December 29, 2007, only the shares of this case 1 were owned from the original.

③ In addition to the instant shares, this case’s shares were reported to be donated to E, which is the Plaintiff, the FF shares 894,622 shares on the same day, and the BB and E are merely related to the Plaintiff’s intermediate, and the BB did not know the E at the time of December 29, 2007, and it is not deemed that EX donated 894,622 shares to E that it did not know, and it should be deemed that EX again re-titled to E in the form of donation of shares held in title by the Plaintiff. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the instant shares were owned by the Plaintiff just like the above 894,62 shares as the Plaintiff owned.

(4) The lower court found that the Plaintiff’s 20 years F and its 200 billion won was merely an affiliate of the F and its 1B, and that the Plaintiff’s 200 won was found to have been guilty of embezzlement by using the F and its 197 name from around December 197 to December 199 (the first instance court: the Seoul Central District Court 2004Guhap445, 628, and the second instance court found that the Plaintiff’s 200-year 2000 won was the above 20-year 2000 won, and that the F and its 20-year 2000 won was the above 20-year 2000 won, and that the 20-year 26th 26th 26th 207 7th 208 7th 207 7th 207 7th 205 7th 2007 7th 207 7th 20.

6. There is no reason to give a donation to the Plaintiff, who is the president of the Grand Group, of the shares No. 1 of this case, which shall be equivalent to KRW 000 without special circumstances.

2) On the basis of these facts, the Defendant reported that the Plaintiff was a gift contract, and theseB asserted that the Plaintiff had financial capacity in the relevant administrative litigation (Seoul Administrative Court 2006Guhap40901), and that the Defendant again asserted that the instant tax was in violation of the principle of no taxation without representation. It is recognized only when it is deemed necessary to protect specific trust even if the principle of no taxation without representation is applied with respect to the taxation practice, and, in particular, when the tax authorities have committed an act contrary to their past words and actions, it would be subject to disadvantageous disposition such as deprivation of benefits such as tax reduction or exemption under tax law, and punishment under tax law, and the burden of proof of the legality of the gift tax, which is not a matter of principle, 000 won, and 200 won, which were already reported to the Plaintiff and thus, it should be considered that the Plaintiff would not be subject to a new tax return, and that the Plaintiff would not be subject to a new tax return that would have been contrary to the principle of no taxation without representation.

3) Therefore, the instant disposition, based on the premise that the instant shares No. 1 were owned by B, was unlawful.

B. Whether the disposition of this case was lawful

The reasons for this part of the judgment are as follows: "The evidence before the fifth fifth fifth of the judgment of the court of first instance" is to add "B of the witness of the court, E's testimony," and "the testimony of the court of first instance from the 18th to the 13th 13th st st th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th," and "the statement of the court of first instance" is to delete the part concerning the second disposition of this case (from the 14th to the 20th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th),

3. Conclusion

In the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the Plaintiff regarding the disposition 1 of this case shall be revoked, and the disposition 1 of this case shall be revoked. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.