Seoul Administrative Court 2009Guhap52929 ( October 13, 2010)

early 2008west0971 (Law No. 91, 2009)

Donation of stock nominal trust property

The Plaintiffs’ assertion that the shares do not constitute a title trust by making a direct investment, but there is no ability to invest in the shares, and thus constitutes a title trust shares.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

쇠鹬 쇠지鹬 3000 쇠지지지지 3000 지지지지지지지지지 3000

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The imposition of KRW 203,826,00 and the imposition of KRW 146,260,80 on November 8, 2007 by the head of the Guro-gu Tax Office against the Plaintiff KimA on December 1, 2007 shall be revoked in entirety.

쇠지지지지 3000 지지지지지지 3000 지지지지지지지지지지 3000

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

A. The reasoning for the statement concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance except for the portion to be determined additionally in the following B. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. Additional determination

(1) The plaintiffs held the title trust of each of the shares in this case with the plaintiffs, and accordingly, in order to be deemed that the plaintiffs received a donation of the value of each of the shares in this case from the doorCC, a transfer should be made in the name of the plaintiffs in the register of shareholders. The plaintiffs did not transfer the title to each of the shares in this case under the names of the plaintiffs, and the changes in each of the shares in this case were merely stated in the detailed statement on the state of changes in stocks, and therefore, they cannot make a deemed donation

(2) According to the purport of the evidence No. 2-2 and No. 10 of the evidence No. 2-2 and No. 10 and the whole pleadings, since the entry of a change of entry into the name of the plaintiffs on each of the instant shares in the shareholder registry of DDD on February 9, 2009 is recognized (it is not possible to verify the shareholder registry as at the time of the recording, but according to the written answer to DD’s written answer to DD E, the head of the management team of DD’s accounting team, he/she was present as the shareholder of DD’s 17th temporary shareholders meeting held on February 9, 2002 (it is not possible to verify whether he/she actually attended or delegated attendance). The above assertion is without merit.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance is just, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.