Seoul Administrative Court 2013Guhap6541 (Law No. 23, 2013)

early 2012west 4533 ( December 17, 2012)

It is reasonable to view that the title trust of the shares at issue had the purpose of tax avoidance.

In full view of the fact that whether there was no specific tax avoidance result after the title trust of the shares at issue, the issue of whether there was an objective of tax avoidance or not should be determined as at the time of the title trust, and whether there was tax evasion or not, it is difficult to find that it was difficult to acknowledge that there was no objective of tax avoidance in the title trust of the shares at issue.

Article 45 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

2013Nu47896 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

1.PA 2. This B3. Chapter BCC

1.D Director 2.E Director

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2013Guhap6541 Decided August 23, 2013

April 25, 2014

May 23, 2014

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. The imposition of OOO on May 1, 2012 by the head of Song-Pacific Tax Office against the Plaintiff LA on the part of the Plaintiff LA, the imposition of OOOOO on May 2, 2012, the imposition of the gift tax on the Plaintiff EB on the part of the Plaintiff, and the imposition of the gift tax OOOOO on May 17, 2012 by the head of the Defendant Samsung Samsung Tax Office on the part of the Plaintiff Samsung Tax Office.

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

This decision is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition of the following contents, and therefore, 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 Chapter 3, "(1)" shall be added to the first head of Chapter 13.

(2) On face 3, 16, the following shall be added:

“(2) Although each of the instant shares is not derived from the shares held in title trust on October 16, 1992 by the Plaintiffs, it goes against the essence of “the provision on the constructive gift of title trust property”, which is the basis of the instant disposition, since the Plaintiffs’ imposition of gift tax by evaluating that they were newly donated is more unfavorable than the original donation.

③ On the 3rd page, “(1) judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion” is added following the 19th page.

④ After the 5th chapter 3, "The plaintiffs asserted that "the plaintiff was in the position of secondary tax liability as the oligopolistic shareholder of the company of this case regardless of the title trust of this case because he fell under the "YF and the relative under Article 20 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes". However, according to the entry of the detailed statement on the change of stocks (Evidence B) of the company of this case, the sulfurF reported the relation with the plaintiffs from November 2, 1992 to December 30, 2009 not only to the tax office, but also to the "other person who is in a special relationship with the plaintiffs".

(5) On the 6th page, the following shall be added:

"(2) Judgment on the plaintiffs' assertion

Since each of the instant shares was issued through capital increase with consideration, it should be deemed that it constitutes a property separate from the shares held in title trust on October 16, 1992. Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ assertion is groundless on the premise that each of the instant shares was merely derived from the shares held in title trust prior to the mere fact that it was a profit derived therefrom.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.