Plaintiff (Attorney Lee Im-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Director of Gangnam District Office

May 14, 2010

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s taxation of gift tax of 231,04,790 won on December 31, 2005, the gift tax of 231,04,790 won on March 31, 2006, the gift tax of 44,446,100 won on March 31, 2006, the gift tax of 233,947,050 won on December 31, 2006, the gift tax of 106,706,990 won on March 31, 2007, and the taxation of 29,111,580 won on each of the above gift taxes of 29,111,580 won on June 11, 2008, 6,489,210 won, 29,47, 297, 290 won, 13,445, and 40 won.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. As a result of the investigation into the source of the acquisition fund against the Plaintiff, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office established two securities companies, including the Plaintiff’s father, Nonparty 1 (hereinafter “Treatment Securities”) and ELD Investment Securities Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Investment Securities Co., Ltd.”) (hereinafter “Korea Investment Securities Co., Ltd.”), and notified the Defendant, who is the nominal owner, of the assessed value of each of the shares of this case, on the ground that the value of each of the shares of this case was trusted in trust to the Plaintiff by Nonparty 1, the title holder at the time of March 31, 2006.

B. Pursuant to Article 41-2 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8828 of Dec. 31, 2007; hereinafter “former Inheritance Tax Act”), the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff donated each of the instant stocks from Nonparty 1. The Defendant calculated the value of donated shares of each of the instant securities consignment account on December 1 and the transfer date according to the settlement corporation at the end of March and the settlement corporation at the end of March as indicated in the following table. The shares owned in 2006 include only the said deemed donation amount for the shares owned in 2005 and new shares increased by 231,04,790, 790, 306, 196, 207, 207, 205, 30, 44, 46, 106, 196, 30, 196, 207, 196, 207, 196, 2006, 314.7, 14.6

Samsung 2, 168, 168, 4278, 277, 30, 206, 30, 360, 360, 360, 278, 467, 467, 246 Korean investment securities of 20, 30, 206, 30, 206, 306, 306, 206, 306, 306, 47, 206, 206, 30, 205, 206, 30, 206, 306, 205, 206, 206, 306, 306, 306, 206, 306, 306, 206, 306, 306, 306, 205, 279, 276, 276

C. On November 17, 2007, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the disposition of each of the above gift taxes, but was dismissed on August 14, 2009.

【Unsatisfy-founded facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Each of the dispositions of this case shall be revoked as follows.

1) Nonparty 1 opened each of the above securities accounts without knowledge of the Plaintiff for the purpose of preserving the property following the enforcement of liability for damages. However, since Nonparty 1 did not consent to Nonparty 1’s use of the securities account under his name, Nonparty 1’s each of the instant dispositions based on the premise that Nonparty 1 held the title trust of each of the instant shares to the Plaintiff is unlawful.

2) Even if the above securities account falls under a title trust, the said securities account was established for the preservation of property and stock investment, and the purpose of tax avoidance was not to have been achieved, each of the instant dispositions is unlawful.

3) Furthermore, even if it is recognized that Nonparty 1 held title trust with each of the shares in this case and had the purpose of tax avoidance, the issue and volume of shares in the year 2005 and the year 2006 are only changed, and the taxation disposition was made twice on the ground that it constitutes an independent property independent from the existing shares in the absence of almost little change in the real property value, and is in violation of the principle of double taxation or the principle of proportionality or the principle of excessive prohibition.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

(c) Markets:

1) As to the first argument

According to the Plaintiff’s statement Nos. 2, 8, 9, 17, and 18, and the purport of Nonparty 2’s testimony and pleading, Nonparty 1 prepared an application for opening an account as the Plaintiff’s agent on January 27, 2005, and Nonparty 1 opened a securities account under the Plaintiff’s name by presenting his resident registration certificate and resident registration certificate to the Plaintiff on January 28, 2005, Nonparty 1 prepared a certificate of opening an account under the Plaintiff’s name on January 28, 2005, and opened an account under the Plaintiff’s name with Nonparty 2 with Nonparty 2’s resident registration certificate presented the Plaintiff’s resident registration certificate to Nonparty 2, the fact that Nonparty 1 entered “(e-mail omitted)” in the e-mail column of our investment securities’s account opening confirmation, and the fact that Nonparty 1’s “the above application for opening of an account and the telephone number (on-site phone number omitted)” in our investment securities’s account opening confirmation.

However, it is difficult to believe that Nonparty 1’s testimony as shown in the Plaintiff’s above argument is difficult, and on the other hand, it is insufficient to recognize that the title trust of each of the instant shares was made by Nonparty 1’s unilateral act without relation to the Plaintiff’s intent, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, in light of the following circumstances recognized by the overall purport of entry and pleading in the evidence and evidence Nos. 3 through 11, it is reasonable to deem that Nonparty 1 transferred the ownership of each of the instant shares to the Plaintiff by entering into a title trust agreement or communication with the Plaintiff.

(1) In the application form for the opening of the above account of treatment securities, the “(user number omitted)” was used in the BESEz user column, which is consistent with the English initial in the Plaintiff’s name. In addition, when the account of treatment securities was opened, the Plaintiff’s resident registration certificate was presented.

② On December 18, 2002 and June 10, 2004, the Plaintiff opened a consignment account for each indirect investment on treatment securities and traded until March 27, 2007, respectively, and even around May 2007, there was a balance of securities.

③ In light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff and Nonparty 1 were selected in the notice of the details of transactions of Korean investment securities at the place of notification; (b) the Plaintiff and Nonparty 1 were registered as a resident at the same address from July 7, 1995 to November 29, 2006; (c) the notice of the details of transactions to be served on the instant securities account; and (d) the notice of the call-up of the general meeting of shareholders of 44 listed stocks and the notice of dividend payment, etc. were served at the same address; and (e) the Plaintiff and Nonparty 1 were deemed to have lived at the same address during the period of their resident registration. In light of the above, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff received the notice of the said details of transactions and the notice of payment, etc.

④ At the time of filing a global income tax return for the global income tax reverted to 2005, the Plaintiff reported the interest and dividend income accrued from the investment bond, treatment bond, and Samsung Securities as global income.

⑤ On September 19, 2006, September 20, 2006, and November 8, 2006, the Plaintiff issued a certificate of income amount for wage income earners and global income tax for the Plaintiff’s mother Nonparty 3 who made a year-end settlement through Nonparty 3 on September 3, 2006, and the said application is accompanied by a copy of the Plaintiff’s resident registration certificate or driver’s license.

6) If Nonparty 1 title trust shares using the securities account under the Plaintiff’s name, Nonparty 1 is an internal owner in a relationship with the Plaintiff and manages the shares of the said securities account. Therefore, it is insufficient to readily conclude that the Plaintiff was unaware of having used the Plaintiff’s name solely on the ground that Nonparty 1 entered Nonparty 1’s e-mail and telephone number in the application for opening

2) As to the second argument

The legislative intent of Article 45-2(1) of the former Inheritance and Gift Tax Act is to effectively prevent the act of tax avoidance using the title trust system and realize the tax justice. As such, the proviso of the same Article is applicable only to a case where the purpose of tax avoidance is not included in the purpose of the title trust. In such a case, the burden of proving that there was no purpose of tax avoidance. Therefore, the fact that there was no other purpose of tax avoidance can be proven by means of proving that there was no purpose of tax avoidance. However, the nominal owner who bears the burden of proving the burden of proof has obvious objective and non-related to the tax avoidance to the extent that it is recognized that there was no purpose of tax avoidance in the title trust, and the fact that there was no tax avoidance at the time of the title trust or at the time of the future has to be proved to the extent that there was no doubt if there was an ordinary person based on objective and supporting evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Du11220, Sept. 22,

According to the evidence evidence Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, non-party 1, 2, from March 13, 1996 to August 8, 2002, the above company's representative director from March 1999 to August 8, 2002, the non-party 4 and 359 were jointly and severally filed a lawsuit with the Seoul Central District Court No. 78858, Oct. 24, 200 against the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 (the non-party 5 and the non-party 2 were jointly and severally filed a lawsuit claiming damages against the non-party 5 and the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 5 and the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 8 and the non-party 2, the non-party 2, and the non-party 8 and the non-party 2, the non-party 5, the above 28885 and the same.

However, the above facts and the evidence of Nos. 4, 19, and 22 are insufficient to recognize that Nonparty 1 and the Plaintiff did not have an intent to evade tax, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, according to the evidence Nos. 1, 11, and 14, Nonparty 1 acquired real estate of an amount equivalent to 11,786,000 won of the standard market price on May 9, 2005, the non-party 1 acquired real estate of an amount of 2,450 square meters. Non-party 1 opened an account in his name on October 13, 2005 with the future three securities on 206 and acquired dividend income through our investment securities, treatment securities, and Samsung securities including the above account in 206, and it was difficult to conclude that the non-party 1 did not have an intention to evade the global income tax after adding it to the national bank account including deposit securities, and one bank account. Furthermore, it was difficult to conclude that the non-party 1 had been subject to comprehensive taxation for 205 years thereafter.

A table (unit 1,00 won) income earner included in the main sentence of this Act shall be calculated on the basis of non-party 18,110 274 65,629 18,10 83,739 41,942 41,942 41,9425,879 6,153 10,809

3) As to the third argument

The fact that the defendant calculated the value of donated property including only new stocks and increased stocks in preparation for the year 2005 is subject to deemed donation in comparison with the above.

In light of the fact that the provision on constructive gift under Article 45-2 (1) of the former Inheritance and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 200558, Feb. 8, 2007; Presidential Decree No. 20065, Feb. 8, 2007; Presidential Decree No. 200655, Feb. 2, 2007; Presidential Decree No. 200655, Feb. 2, 2007; Presidential Decree No. 200655, Feb. 1, 2007; Presidential Decree No. 20010, Feb. 2, 2006; Presidential Decree No. 20010, Feb. 1, 2006; Presidential Decree No. 20130, Feb. 1, 2006; Presidential Decree No. 20130, Feb. 1, 200).

3. Conclusion

Thus, all of the plaintiff's claims shall be dismissed as it is without merit.

[Attachment]

Judges Lee Jae-ho (Presiding Judge)