(영문) 서울행정법원 2015.12.04 2015구합1045

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울행정법원 2015.12.04 2015구합1045

증여세부과처분무효확인

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. On March 25, 2010, the Defendant issued a notice to the Plaintiff on January 15, 2013, on the ground that the Plaintiff trusted the title trust of C (hereinafter “C”)’s shares to B (hereinafter “C”) and KRW 596,508,00 (including penalty tax) for gift tax, and on the same day, notified the Plaintiff of the designation and payment of joint and several tax liability for gift tax.

(hereinafter referred to as "the Disposition in this case"). / [Grounds for recognition] The Disposition in this case is without dispute, entry in the Evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is null and void

A. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff made the instant disposition based on the fact that the Plaintiff held the title trust with B, and the person who held the title trust with B is not B but D.

Therefore, the instant disposition is null and void because it is a tax disposition against a person who is not a taxpayer due to a significant and apparent defect.

B. In addition to the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 4, the following facts can be acknowledged: ① the plaintiff is the actual operator of Eul; ② the plaintiff is the nominal representative director of Eul; ② the plaintiff borrowed KRW 1.5 billion from Eul and granted it to Eul; ③ the shares in this case are not nominal trust for the purpose of tax avoidance; ③ the actual owner of the shares in this case was not nominal trust for the purpose of tax avoidance; and ② the fact that the actual owner of the shares in this case lost the lawsuit for the revocation of the disposition imposing gift tax against himself on the ground that D (which was finalized on October 21, 2014).

According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff is the title truster of the shares of this case, and it is difficult to deem the disposition of this case, which is based on such premise, as null and void.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is not accepted.

3. Conclusion

유사 판례

-서울행정법원 2015. 12. 04. 선고 2015구합1045 판결

-서울고등법원 2019.11.01 2019누30159

-서울행정법원 2017. 05. 26. 선고 2016구합78455 판결

-서울행정법원 2015.06.05 2014구합69723

-서울행정법원 2017.11.30 2017구합52535