The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2, the legislative purport of Article 41-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6780, Dec. 18, 2002; hereinafter the same) is to recognize an exception to the principle of substantial taxation in the purport that the act of tax avoidance using the title trust system is effectively prevented, thereby realizing the tax justice. Thus, if the title trust was recognized to have been conducted for any reason other than the purpose of tax avoidance and it is only a minor reduction incidental to the said title trust, it cannot be readily concluded that there was a "tax avoidance purpose" in such title trust. However, in light of the legislative purport as above, it cannot be deemed that there was a "tax avoidance purpose" in such title trust only where the purpose of tax avoidance is not included in the purpose of the title trust, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there was no other main purpose or intent of tax avoidance.

In addition, the burden of proof on the absence of the purpose of tax avoidance lies on the person who asserts it.

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the court below’s determination is just in rejecting the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was no purpose of tax avoidance in the title trust of the instant shares, based on the reasons indicated in its reasoning. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the purpose of tax avoidance in the constructive gift of title trust property.

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 3, in light of the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning admitted by the adopted evidence, the lower court is complementary to the Defendant’s provision of Article 63(1)1(c) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, since the transaction example or appraisal value claimed by the Plaintiff cannot be deemed the market price of the instant shares