There is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff’s name was stolen, and it is difficult to view that there was no tax avoidance purpose, so the original disposition is legitimate to apply the title trust donation system.

It is difficult to view that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff acquired the shares of this case by stealing the Plaintiff’s name, and there is no tax to be avoided at the time of the title trust or in the future, and there is no objective and conclusive evidence to prove that there is no tax to be avoided in the future, so it is difficult to view that there

Legal fiction of donation of title trust property under Article 45-2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

2012Revocation of revocation of disposition imposing gift tax, 5800

Park AA

(b) the Director of the Tax Office

June 27, 2013

August 29, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

On June 1, 2012, the defendant revoked each disposition of the gift tax on the plaintiff on June 1, 2012 ("OOO", "OOOO" for the gift tax on the part of 2007, "OO" for the gift tax on the part of 2007, "OO" for the gift tax on the part of 2008, "OO" for the gift tax on the part of 2009, "OO" for the gift tax on the part of 2010, and "OOO" for the gift tax on the part of 2010.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. B established DCC Development Co., Ltd. on June 30, 2007, acquired 1,500 shares out of the entire shares of the above company under the name of the Plaintiff, and acquired 7,500 shares out of new shares (30% shares) on December 7, 2007, and acquired 6,000 shares out of new shares after providing capital increase on November 7, 2009 under the name of each Plaintiff. In establishing CCC Development on August 29, 2007, 1,00 shares out of the entire shares of the above company (20% shares) were acquired in the name of the Plaintiff, and 50 shares out of new shares were purchased on July 3, 200, 200, and 60 shares were purchased under the name of the Plaintiff + 600 shares, and 70 shares were acquired under the name of each of the Plaintiff + 700 shares were acquired under the name of each of the Plaintiff.

B. The Defendant, where the actual owner of the instant shares is different from the nominal owner, deemed that the Plaintiff was donated from thisB pursuant to the main sentence of Article 45-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (hereinafter “Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”), and on June 1, 2012, decided and notified each of the instant disposition to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on June 21, 2012, and the Commissioner of the National Tax Service dismissed the said request on September 18, 2012.

[Based on Recognition] The descriptions of Gap and Eul evidence 1 and 2, and Eul evidence 2 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The allegation that B used the Plaintiff’s name by theft

The plaintiff only consented to the registration of the plaintiff as a director or auditor of each company of this case to the LeeB (the plaintiff's friendly employment EE type), and there was no consent to the acquisition of the shares of this case in the name of the plaintiff, and this is to acquire the shares of this case arbitrarily in the name of the plaintiff by misappropriation of the plaintiff's name.

2) The assertion that there was no purpose of tax avoidance

At the time of the incorporation of each of the instant corporations, the acquisition of shares in the name of the Plaintiff was aimed at meeting the number of promoters required under the Commercial Act, and thereafter, the acquisition of new shares was made in accordance with the ratio of shares by offering new shares to meet the requirements for the registration of housing construction business, and was made to acquire shares in the name of the Plaintiff. Therefore, each of the instant corporations did not have any other purpose than tax avoidance, and there was no fact that the instant corporations did not pay taxes in arrears or paid dividends, and it cannot be deemed that the instant corporations were an oligopolistic shareholder with the aim of avoiding the burden of global income tax, which is the global income tax amount for the second tax liability

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) As to the allegation that this B abused the Plaintiff’s name

A) The main text of Article 45-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that “where the actual owner or the nominal owner of the property necessary to register, etc. transfer or exercise of the right is different, the value of the property shall be deemed to have been donated to the actual owner by the nominal owner on the date when the property is registered, etc. as the nominal owner (where the property is subject to transfer of the right, referring to the date following the end of the year following the year in which the date of acquisition of the right of representation falls), notwithstanding Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes.” In a case where the registration, etc. is unilaterally made regardless of the intent of the nominal owner, the provision of the said provision may not be applied, but in such a case, the fact that the registration was made unilaterally by the actual owner regardless of the intent of the nominal owner shall be proved by the assertion (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Du13848, Dec. 21, 206).

B) The facts acknowledged as the crime of reason for a criminal judgment already established with respect to the same facts are significant evidence, and it is not possible to recognize the facts opposed to the facts in the criminal trial in light of other evidence submitted in another trial unless there are special circumstances that it is difficult to adopt a factual judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da9621, May 28, 1996). In addition to the whole purport of the arguments in the statement in subparagraph 3, this BB obtained the entire purport of the pleadings on May 29, 2012 by using the Plaintiff’s certificate of personal seal impression 2012 high-ranking69, approximately 2000,000, and it is recognized that the above summary order was finalized as it is.

However, it is difficult to see that the plaintiff was registered as a director until May 2010 in the case of DaD Development, and that the plaintiff did not know that the shares of this case were registered in his name, i.e., the plaintiff delivered a seal imprint and a certificate of personal seal impression to B on April 13, 2012, after the investigation of gift tax on the shares of this case was completed. (ii) The company of this case filed a complaint with B on April 13, 2012 with a private document forgery or a falsified investigation document; (iii) five employees are the same at the location of the principal office of this case; and (iv) the company of this case was registered as a director from the time of the establishment of each company of this case until the date of the company of this case, and in the case of DaCC Development, it is difficult to see that the plaintiff did not know that the shares of this case were registered in its name; and (iii) the plaintiff did not appear to have issued a confession or a false certificate of personal seal impression to this case as a director or auditor.

2) As to the assertion that there was no purpose of tax avoidance

A) The legislative purport of Article 45-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is to effectively prevent the act of tax avoidance using the title trust system and realize the tax justice. Thus, the application of the proviso of the same Article is possible only if the purpose of tax avoidance is not included in the purpose of the title trust, and in this case, the burden of proving that there was no other purpose of tax avoidance can be proven by means of proving that there was no other purpose of tax avoidance. Therefore, while the nominal owner who bears 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 that there was no tax avoidance at the time of the title trust or there was no tax avoidance at the time of the title trust, the determination of whether there was a tax evasion should be made to the extent that there was no doubt (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Du11200, Sept. 22, 206). 207.

B) According to Article 288 of the former Commercial Act (amended by Act No. 6488 of July 24, 2001), when establishing a stock company, three or more promoters are required, and on July 24, 2001, when the Commercial Act was amended on July 24, 2001, as long as the limitation on the number of promoters is extinguished, it is difficult to view that BB made title trust in order to meet the number of promoters required under the Commercial Act while establishing each of the instant companies, and therefore, it is difficult to deem that there was a clear purpose that there was no tax avoidance nor any other tax avoidance purpose to the extent that it is recognized that there was no tax avoidance purpose.

Furthermore, each entry in Eul 2 and 3 (including household numbers) includes the following circumstances in which it can be identified by adding the entire arguments to H, i.e.,, one shareholder possessing the shares of each of the instant companies, and theseB shall be liable for the transfer income tax under the progressive tax rate in accordance with Articles 104(1)1 and 94(1)4(c) of the Income Tax Act, and Article 158(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and theseB may avoid this transfer of the instant shares. In fact, theseB transferred 60,000 shares of the CCC Development Co., Ltd., which was trusted to the Plaintiff and the HF and Kim GG to H, but it is difficult to view that there was no doubt that there was no objective or objective evidence to prove that there was no transfer income tax nor any other tax return for the Plaintiff’s shares under the name of the Plaintiff, and those under the name of 120 and 100 shares under the name of the KimG.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.