The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Where it is recognized that the title trust was made for reasons other than the purpose of tax avoidance, and only a minor reduction of tax incidental to such title trust takes place, it cannot be deemed that there was a tax avoidance purpose under Article 45-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9916, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter “former Inheritance Tax Act”).

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Du7733 Decided May 12, 2006, and Supreme Court Decision 2010Du24104 Decided March 24, 201, etc.). 2. A.

The lower court, citing the reasoning of the first instance judgment, acknowledged the following facts.

(1) The Plaintiff (Appointed Party; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Plaintiff’s spouse E respectively title trust the total number of 136,500 shares issued by F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) for which the appointed party E was the representative director, and completed the transfer of title on May 26, 2008 to the designated party B, C, and D (hereinafter “instant shares”).

(2) Accordingly, the Defendant applied the provision on deemed donation of trust property under the name of trust property under Article 45-2(1) of the former Inheritance and Gift Tax Act, and imposed gift tax on July 17, 2012 and August 2, 2012 on B, C, and D, respectively, and on July 17, 2012, the Plaintiff and E were designated as joint and several taxpayers.

(hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant disposition”). B.

Then, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s claim seeking revocation of the instant disposition on the ground that it is difficult to deem that the title trust of the instant shares did not have any tax avoidance purpose in light of the following: (a) there was a possibility to reduce the global income tax burden, which is the global income tax, when considering the F’s possibility of future dividend distribution; and (b) the Plaintiff and E was delinquent at the time of the title trust.

3. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

According to the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the following circumstances are examined: