Seoul Administrative Court 2014Guhap16620

The burden of proof that there was no tax avoidance purpose for the title trust is the nominal holder who asserts it.

Unless the purpose of title trust is not included in the purpose of tax avoidance, it cannot be deemed as a deemed donation by applying the proviso of the above provision. Therefore, if it is deemed that there was an intention of tax avoidance as well as the other main purpose, it cannot be deemed that there

Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (Legal Fiction as Donation of Title Trust Property)

2015Nu40905 Revocation of a disposition imposing gift tax

AAA 2

BB Head of tax office et al.

November 12, 2015

November 26, 2015

1. The plaintiffs' appeals against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

the Gu Office's place of service and place of service

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The imposition of KRW 0,00,000,000, which was made by the head of the tax office on October 8, 2013 against the Plaintiff AA and CCC on December 31, 2008, and the imposition of KRW 00,00,000,000, which was made by the head of the tax office on October 11, 2013 against the Plaintiff AA and EE, respectively, and the imposition of KRW 00,00,00,00,000, which was made by the head of the tax office on December 31, 2004 against the Plaintiff AA and EE on December 31, 2010, shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

This Court's decision is identical to the reasons for the first instance court's decision, and therefore, Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the citizen

It shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Private Litigation Act.

2. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.