Seoul Administrative Court 2015Guhap83375 ( November 10, 2016)

As long as the title trust is recognized, the nominal owner shall prove that there has been another obvious purpose of tax avoidance.

(1) The shares held in title trust under the name of the first instance court (as with the judgment of the first instance court), could be avoided from applying the progressive tax rate on dividend income, from the burden of secondary tax liability under the Framework Act on National Taxes, and from the burden of deemed acquisition tax under the Local Tax Act, and could have avoided the application of the unfair calculation panel regulations, etc. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that there exists a stock trust

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

2016Nu7891 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

AA

○ Head of tax office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2015Guhap83375 decided November 10, 2016

on April 27, 2017

on October 25, 2017

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. On March 9, 2015, the imposition of gift tax ○○○○○ (including additional tax) against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of the court is as follows, except for the addition of " March 9, 2015" to "in the application of the second and second Part 10 of the judgment of the court of first instance," and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is accepted by the main text of Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article

2. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is groundless.