The title trust agreement was reached and the purpose of tax avoidance was for tax avoidance.

In light of the fact that the Plaintiffs, who were their employees or relatives, were to bear a large amount of gift tax according to the tax investigation on the grounds that they lent their shareholders' name, there was a possibility that they were led to confession for the purpose of avoiding this, and there was an agreement in title trust and for tax avoidance purposes.

2013Guhap466 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

1.A 2. RedB 3.CC 4.GlaD 5. GlaE

6. GimF 7.G 8.The Hag H 9. G II

Head of the Tong Tax Office

October 15, 2013

November 12, 2013

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The imposition of each gift tax stated in the separate sheet No. 1 attached hereto, which the Defendant issued on January 6, 2012 to the Plaintiffs, and the imposition of each additional tax stated in the additional tax column on September 4, 2013, shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 3-1 through 6, Gap evidence 9, Eul evidence 11-1 through 18, Eul evidence 1, 17, 19-1 through 19, Eul evidence 20-1, 2, and 3 as a whole, and the purport of the whole arguments.

A. Nonparty J is a person who actually operates K Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “K Heavy Industries”), LL Marine Development Co., Ltd. operating underwater construction business (hereinafter “LL marine development business”), and LL Construction Co., Ltd. operating construction business (hereinafter “LL development”), and each of the above companies is the actual owner of the shares of each of the instant companies, and is working as the representative director of K Heavy Industries from March 31, 2009 to March 31, 2009.

B. From December 11, 2003 to March 31, 2006, Plaintiff KimE (JJ) had been registered as a director of LL ocean development, from March 31, 2006 to the same company’s representative director. Plaintiff Lee GG had been working for the same company’s representative director from August 29, 2003 to January 25, 2006, Plaintiff KimF had been working for the same company’s auditor from August 29, 2003 to March 31, 2009, Plaintiff KimF was registered as an executive of the same company, Plaintiff II (JJJ) Kim Jong-A was registered as an executive of the same company, and Plaintiff HongM was working for or was working for the same company’s representative director on June 29, 2009, and Plaintiff HongM was currently working for or was registered for the same company’s representative director on the same date.

C. The name of shares of each of the instant companies owned by Kim J (hereinafter referred to as the “instant shares”) was transferred to the name of the Plaintiffs as shown in the attached Table 2, and was registered in the register of shareholders of each of the instant companies. The head of Busan Regional Tax Office, upon conducting the general corporate tax integration investigation for each of the instant companies from 2006 to 2008, deemed that the Plaintiffs were entrusted with the shares of each of the instant companies by Kim J, and notified the Defendant of the data for taxation. The Defendant imposed each gift tax (including additional tax) on January 6, 2012, as indicated in the attached Table 1 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (see attached Table 3; hereinafter the same shall apply) on the transfer of the title of the instant shares by applying the provision on the constructive gift of title trust property under Article 45-2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (hereinafter the same shall apply) to the Plaintiffs, and imposed the additional tax on September 4, 2013 (excluding the penalty tax on each of the instant companies).

D. The Plaintiffs filed an objection against the imposition of gift tax and additional tax as of January 6, 2012, but the objection was dismissed, the Plaintiffs filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on August 1, 2012, and the Tax Tribunal dismissed the remaining Plaintiffs’ appeal except the Plaintiff Kim II on November 13, 2012 and the Plaintiff Kim II’s appeal on December 3, 2012.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

1) The Kim J transferred the names of the shares of this case, which were owned by the plaintiffs, by stealing the plaintiffs' names by forging a certificate of seal impression and a certificate of seal impression for the purpose of using the plaintiffs as the executives of each company of this case. This constitutes a case where the names of the shares of this case, which are owned by the plaintiffs, are unilaterally transferred without agreement between the parties concerned.

2) In addition, it is difficult to see that Kim J transferred the name of the instant shares to the Plaintiffs for the purpose of tax avoidance.

3) Therefore, even if the provision on deemed donation of title trust property under Article 45-2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is not applicable, the instant disposition imposing gift tax on the Plaintiffs by applying the above provision is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 3 shall be as listed in attached Table 3.

(c) Fact of recognition;

The following facts may be acknowledged, either in dispute between the parties, or in full view of the respective descriptions of the evidence of Nos. 2 through 8, Eul No. 14-1 through 7, Eul No. 15, 16, and 18, and the whole purport of the pleadings:

1) 김JJ은 2011. 9. 28. 이 사건 각 회사의 법인세통합조사와 관련하여 부산지방국세청 국세공무원으로부터 주식명의신탁 여부에 대한 조사를 받으면서 ① 2004. 1. 19. LL건설의 주식 전부를 기존 주주들로부터 양수받는 방법으로 취득함으로써 그 주식의 지분 100%를 자신이 소유하고 있으나, 일부는 별지 2 표 순번 제2 내지 5, 11, 14, 17항 기재와 같이 원고 홍BB, 한CC, 김DD, 김FF, 곽HH을 명의자로 하여, 일부는 김NN을 명의자로 하여 명의신탁하였고, ② 2003. 8. 29. LL해양개발을 설립하면서 그 주식의 지분 100%를 자신이 소유하고 있으나, 일부는 별지 2 표 순번 제1, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19항 기재와 같이 원고 정AA, 김EE, 김FF, 이GG, 김II를 명의자로 하여, 일부는 최PP를 명의자로 하여 명의신탁하였으며, ③ 2007. 8. 14. KK중공업을 설립하면서 그 주식의 지분 100%를 자신이 소유하고 있고, 그 중 일부를 별지 2 표 순번 제9항 기재와 같이 김EE를 명의자로 하여, 일부는 한QQ, 조RR을 명의자로 하여 각 명의신탁하였는데, ④ 위 각 명의신탁 당시 위 원고들도 이러한 사실을 알고 있었을 뿐만 아니라 그와 같은 명의신탁에 협조를 잘 하여주었으며, ⑤ 위와 같이 명의신탁을 한 이유에 대하여는 자신이 LL건설 인수 당시 신용불량자였으므로 주식을 타인 명의로 인수할 수밖에 없었고, 그 이후에는 1인 주주에 따른 금융기관의 대출문제와 대외 신인도 문제를 고려하여 타인명의로 신탁하게 되었던 것이라고 진술(문답서에 기재)하였다.

2) On October 4, 2011, Plaintiff HongB, HanCC, KimD, KimE, KimF, KimF, and Lee GG prepared and issued a written confirmation that the public official of the Busan Regional Tax Office was not a real shareholder and that the Kim J was only lent only their names upon the request of Kim J from the position of the company employees.

3) 원고들 및 조RR, 김NN, 최PP, 한QQ은 2011. 10. 10. 통영경찰서에서 위 확인서의 내용과 달리 김JJ이 자신들의 동의를 받지 아니하고 자신들의 인장을 이용하여 임의로 주식양수도에 관한 서류를 위조하였다는 범죄사실로 김JJ을 고소하였다.

4) 김JJ은 2011. 11. 15., 2011. 12. 17., 2012. 1. 11. 통영경찰서에서 위 범죄사실에 대하여 조사를 받으면서 이를 모두 자백하였다. 김JJ은 원고들 및 조RR, 김NN, 최PP, 한QQ이 위 범죄사실 중 별지 2 표 순번 제2, 5, 14항 기재 주식명의 이전에 관한 범죄사실로 기소되어 창원지방법원 통영지원[2012고합27, 32(병합), 35(병합), 41(병합), 72(병합)]에서 사문서위조죄 등의 유죄판결을 받았고, 이에 대하여 양형부당을 이유로 김JJ과 검사가 항소를 제기하였으며, 항소심인 부산고등법원(창원)에서도 위 범죄사실은 그대로 인정되었다. 또한 나머지 범죄사실 중 같은 표 순번 제1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10 내지 13, 15 내지 19항 기재 주식명의이전에 관한 범죄사실에 대하여는 사문서위조죄 등의 공소시효가 경과하였다는 이유로, 같은 표 순번 제9항 기재 주식명의이전에 관한 범죄사실은 김JJ이 대표이사로서 작성권한 있는 자가 허위의 문서를 작성한 데에 지나지 아니하여 범죄가 되지 아니한다는 이유로 기소되지 아니하였다.

5) Meanwhile, in a criminal trial on the fabrication, etc. of the above private document by the KimJ, the plaintiff HongB, Han-B, Han-CC, KimD, KimF, HaHF, and Maximum PPP were submitted a written agreement that they would not want to be punished by the KimJ. The KimJ submitted the normal data and the purport of proof that the above plaintiffs and the highest PPP would not have any damage due to the cancellation of the tax imposed on them in the above criminal trial.

C. Determination

1) Article 45-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act applies to property, the transfer or exercise of which requires registration, etc. in the name of the actual owner or the nominal owner by agreement or communication, and where a registration, etc. is made in the name of the nominal owner unilaterally by using the name of the nominal owner regardless of the intent of the nominal owner, it shall not apply to the case where a registration, etc. is made in the name of the nominal owner. In this case, the tax authority must prove only the difference between the actual owner and the nominal owner, and the verification that the use of the name was made by the unilateral act of the actual owner shall be made by the nominal owner who asserts such change (see, e.g

In addition, the facts recognized in the judgment in a related criminal case shall be binding evidence in a civil trial unless there are special circumstances. However, if it is deemed difficult to adopt a factual judgment in light of other evidence submitted in a civil trial as it is, it may be rejected (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Da12603, May 27, 2010; 2006Da27055, Sept. 14, 2006). This is also the same in an administrative trial. If a tax authority has obtained a written confirmation from a taxpayer to a certain taxable fact in the course of conducting a tax investigation, it cannot be readily denied the value of the written confirmation unless there are special circumstances, such as where the written confirmation was compulsorily signed and sealed against the will of the originator, or where it is difficult to use it as supporting material for specific facts due to lack of the content thereof, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Du256089, Dec. 6, 2002>

2) The facts of entry of the change of entry into the name of the plaintiffs as shown in the separate sheet Nos. 1 (C. 1), 4 (C. 5 (Statement), and 9 (C. 10), which seem to correspond to the plaintiffs' assertion of the identity theft, are difficult to believe in light of the following facts and circumstances. The entries of evidence No. 10-2 (Protocol of Examination of Witness) are insufficient to acknowledge the change of entry into the plaintiffs' name, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the change.

3) 오히려 앞서 인정한 사실들을 종합하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 김JJ이 앞서 본 바와 같이 부산지방국세청 국세공무원으로부터 주식명의신탁 여부에 대한 조사를 받으면서 주식명의신탁사실을 모두 인정하였던 점, ② 원고 홍BB, 한CC, 김DD, 김EE, 김FF, 이GG 또한 이에 부합하는 내용의 확인서를 작성하여 국세공무원에게 교부하였던 점, ③ 위 원고들을 포함한 이 사건 원고들 및 김JJ에게 주주 명의를 대여하였던 조RR, 김NN, 최PP, 한QQ은 이전까지는 민・형사상 아무런 조치를 취하지 않다가 위 확인서 작성일로부터 불과 6일 후에야 앞서 본 바와 같이 사문서위조죄 등으로 김JJ을 고소한 점, ④ 원고들은 비상장법인이고 비교적 소수의 직원이 근무하는 이 사건 각 회사에서 김JJ과 많게는 6 ~ 7년 이상, 적게는 3년 이상의 기간을 함께 근무하였을 뿐만 아니라 법인등기부등본상 임원으로도 등재되어 있었던 점에 비추어 볼 때 이 사건 주식을 자신들의 명의로 신탁하여 두는 것을 거부할 이유가 없었다고 보이는 점, ⑤ 김JJ은 2011. 11. 15. 통영경찰서에서 위 사문서위조 등의 범죄사실로 조사를 받으면서 위 2011. 9. 28.자 문답서의 내용과 반대되는 내용의 위 범죄사실을 자백하였는데, 자신의 직원들이거나 친척이었던 위 원고들이 자신에게 주주명의를 대여하여 주었다는 이유로 세무조사에 따른 거액의 증여세를 부담하게 되자 이를 면하게 할 목적으로 자백하였을 가능성이 충분히 있는 점, ⑥ 위 형사재판에서 김JJ이 제출한 합의서와 정상자료 및 입증취지서 내용을 감안할 때, 원고들은 자신들에게 부과될 거액의 증여세를 면하기 위할 목적으로 고소 직전에 세무공무원에게 작성・교부한 확인서와 모순되는 내용의 고소장을 제출하였을 가능성도 충분한 점, ⑦ 또한 위 문답서 및 확인서가 김JJ 및 이를 작성한 원고들의 의사에 반하여 작성되었다는 별다른 사정이 보이지 아니함에도 원고들은 불과 6일 사이에 작성된 위 확인서와 고소장의 내용이 모순되는 이유에 대하여 납득할 만한 설명을 하지 못하고 있는 점을 감안할 때, 단지 형사판결의 사실관계와 다르다는 이유만으로 위 문답서 및 확인서의 증거가치를 쉽사리 배척하기는 어려운 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 김JJ이 일방적으로 원고들 명의로 주식명의개서를 하였다고 보기는 어렵고, 원고들은 사전에 별지 2 표 기재와 같은 주식의 명의개서 내역을 알고 있었거나 그와 같은 명의개서에 동의하였다고 봄이 타당하다. 따라서 위 원고들의 이 부분 주장은 이유 없다.

4) On the other hand, the plaintiffs asserted that Kim J did not have any tax avoidance purpose with respect to the title trust of the shares of this case.

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 proviso of the same Article is applicable only if the purpose of tax avoidance is not included in the purpose of the title trust, and the tax prescribed in the proviso is not limited to gift tax, and the burden of proving that there was no purpose of tax avoidance in the title trust (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Du1421, Jun. 11, 2004). Accordingly, there is no evidence to acknowledge any other obvious purpose, such as management necessity, etc. in the title trust of the instant shares, and Kim JJ does not have any evidence to acknowledge that there was no reason to acknowledge that there was no other purpose than the purpose of tax avoidance in the title trust of the instant shares as a single shareholder who actually owns the entire shares of the instant case, and that the second tax liability can be avoided in the event that each of the instant shares was in arrears after the lack of tax avoidance in the form of the shares, as otherwise alleged by the Plaintiffs.

3. Conclusion

If so, all of the plaintiffs' claims are without merit, they are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.