All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The main text of Article 45-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11130, Dec. 31, 2011) provides that “where the actual owner of an asset necessary to transfer or exercise the right and the title holder is different, the value of the asset shall be deemed donated to the actual owner on the date when it is registered, etc. as the title holder, notwithstanding Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes.” Meanwhile, Article 45-2(2) of the same Act provides that “where property is registered, etc. under another person’s name without any purpose of tax evasion, it shall be presumed that there exists any purpose of tax evasion.”

After finding the facts as stated in its reasoning, the lower court rejected the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the title trust in the instant title trust was not subject to the legal fiction of title trust donation because there was no proof as to the absence of taxes to be avoided at the time of or in the future in the instant title trust, and that the instant title trust in the process of issuing new shares in proportion to the equity ratio of the shares under the original title trust was not subject to taxation

Examining the record in light of the aforementioned provisions and relevant legal principles, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the purpose of tax evasion on the legal fiction of title trust donation.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.