Seocho 208west 2537 ( November 28, 2008)

Appropriateness of the assertion that there was no tax avoidance purpose with respect to stock title trust

It is judged that there was a purpose of tax avoidance in view of the fact that a corporation has made a free capital increase and cash dividend, that there is a substantial amount of avoidance of progressive tax rate based on dividend income, that there was a tax avoidance purpose in view of the fact that stocks

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

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The Defendants’ disposition imposing gift tax shall be revoked in entirety, as stated in the attached disposition details.

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

가 원고 백##의 명의신탁(이 사건 각 주식)

(1) The incorporation of the Korea Development Corporation (LOB) on August 18, 1988

(2) 1996. 5. 11. 유상증자시 : 원고 임@@ 명의로 22,000주, 원고 백$$ 명의로 6,000주, 원고 정한 명의로 22,000주, 임&& 명의로 10,000주 인수

(3) 1997. 4. 25. 유상증자시 : 원고 임@@ 명의로 55,000주, 원고 백$$ 명의로 15,000주, 원고 정한 명의로 55,000주, 임&& 명의로 25,000주 인수

B. Disposition imposing gift tax by the defendant

(1) Basic Acts and subordinate statutes: Article 32-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 5193, Dec. 30, 1996); Article 43(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 5582, Dec. 28, 1998)

(2) 원고 임@@, 백$$, 정한 : 별지 부과처분 내역 기재와 같음

(3) Forest & & & development: 41,274,00 won as gift tax for February 19, 1996, and 229,123,190 won as gift tax for the year 1997;

(4) 임&&은 증여세 체납. 피고 이천세무서장은 2008. 3. 26. 연대납세의무자인 원고 백##에게 위 증여세 부과ㆍ고지

D. The preceding trial procedure: The Tax Tribunal's dismissal of the plaintiffs' appeal on November 28, 2008

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 2-2-1, 3-1, 2, 4-1, 2, 5-1, 5-4, Eul evidence 1-1 through 8, 2-1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

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

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The instant stock title trust was made based on the need to meet the requirements of Nonparty Company’s promoters or increase in capital, etc. and was not subject to tax avoidance, and thus, the instant disposition based on such premise is unlawful.

(b) Fact of recognition;

(1) The current status of shareholders of the non-party company

(가) 원고 백## 및 특수관계자 주식보유비율 : 40% (1992. 8. 31. 기준, 원고 백## 30%. 처 임○효 4%, 형제 백종진, 원고 백$$ 각 3%), 위 비율은 원고 백## 이 2007년경 나머지 원고들 및 임&&과 명의신탁을 해지할 때까지 비슷하게 유지됨

(b) The number of shareholders in the business year 191: Eight persons;

(다) 원고 백##은 1992 사업연도(1991. 9. 1.~ 1992. 8. 31.)에 소외 회사의 주식 60,000주 중 2,400주를 원고 임@@에게, 1,800주를 원고 백$$에게 최초 명의신탁

(2) Detailed and details of the dividend income on each of the shares of this case

196: Enterprise development reserve fund 2.5 billion won free of charge; and

197: Cash dividends in 1.5 billion won; enterprise development reserve 1.5 billion won free of charge;

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 6-1 through 10, 9-1, 2, 20-1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

(1) The burden of proof on the point that the title trust had no objective of evading the tax

(A) Burden of proof: the trustee bears the burden.

(B) Proof degree: The degree of proof was obvious, to the extent that there was no objective of tax avoidance, and there was no objective and conclusive evidence that there was no tax avoidance at the time of the title trust or in the future, to the extent that there was no doubt if it was ordinary.

(2) Comprehensively taking account of the following various circumstances, each of the evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs alone was aimed at satisfying the requirements of promoters with respect to the establishment of the non-party company regardless of tax avoidance, or was insufficient to recognize that there was no tax evasion at the time of title trust or tax evasion in the future due to the above title trust, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

(가) 원고들은, 원고 백##이 소외 회사를 설립하면서 상법상 발기인 요건을 충족하기 위해 일부 주식을 명의 신탁하였고, 이 사건 각 주식 명의신탁은 증자시 기왕의 주식비율에 따른 신주인수에 따른 것일 뿐이라고 주장한다.

그러나 소외 회사의 설립 이후까지 7인 이상의 발기인 겸 주주가 계속 유지 되어야 하는 것은 아니다(더구나 발기인 요건이 3인 이상으로 완화된 개정규정이 1996. 10. 1.부터 시행되었고 2001. 7. 24. 상법 개정으로 그 요건이 더욱 완화되었다). 원고들은 소외 회사 설립시의 주주 현황에 대한 자료를 전혀 제출하지 않고 있으며, 원고 임@@, 백$$에 대한 명의신탁은 1992 사업연도에 이르러서야 이루어졌다.

(나) 원고들은 이 사건 명의신탁과 관련하여 조세회피 의사가 없었고 회피된 조세액도 극히 미미하다고 주장한다. 그러나 소외 회사가 1996년도와 1997년도에 무상증자 및 현금배당을 실시한 사실은 앞서 본 바와 같고, 위와 같은 배당금액을 원고 임@@, 백$$, 정한과 임&&의 소득에 포함시킴으로써 얻는 누진세율회피의 혜택이 84.861.461원(원고들 주장에 의하면 58,184,768원)에 이르므로 위 금액이 미미하다고 보기 어렵다.

(다) 원고 백##은 이 사건 각 주식을 명의신탁함으로써 2007년경까지 과점주주의 지위를 면하였다. 갑 제20호증의 1 내지 4의 각 기재에 의하면, 소외 회사가 2000사업연도 법인세 중 834,219,120원을 연체한 사실이 인정되기도 한다.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed in entirety because they are without merit.