Seoul High Court 2012Nu19399 (2013.06)

title trust, which is not a stock donation, constitutes termination of title trust

It is difficult to view that it constitutes an act of good faith to the extent that it is against the principle of good faith solely on the ground that it is seeking to refund the amount of gift tax already paid, and it is difficult to view that it constitutes an act of good faith to the extent that it is against the principle of good faith merely because it is merely a payment of the small amount of income tax and did not have refluent power to hold shares.

2013du6329 Revocation of revocation of request for rectification

ThisAAA

Head of Yongsan Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 2012Nu19399 Decided February 6, 2013

July 26, 2013

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

The court below, citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, found that (i) the plaintiff filed a report on the tax base and amount of gift tax pursuant to the above gift tax pursuant to the above gift on the ground that it was donated to the defendant on March 26, 2008, on December 28, 2007, (ii) the plaintiff did not request the defendant to rectify the tax base and amount of gift tax pursuant to this case's shares 2,264,698 shares of DD, Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., and (iii) the EE Urban Gas Co., Ltd.'s shares 1,853,08 shares of DD and 39,60 shares of DD Co., Ltd., Ltd., were donated to the defendant on September 30, 209; and (iv) the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles of evidence selection or by exceeding the bounds of the judgment of the court below on September 28, 2009, based on the following facts finding that each of the plaintiff's title trust and its shares were unlawful.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

In order to apply the principle of trust and good faith to taxpayers, there is an objective contradictory behavior, the behavior was derived from the taxpayer's severe acts of worship, and the trust of the tax authorities arising therefrom should be worthy of protection (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Du6300, Jan. 26, 2006). Application of the principle of trust and good faith to the substantial tax law, which strongly serves the principle of legality, is allowed only when it is necessary to protect specific trust in sacrificeing the legal nature. In addition, the tax authorities have the right to a field investigation, and accordingly have the duty to investigate and impose the substance, and accordingly bear the burden of proving the legality of taxation. In light of the above, it is difficult to view that the tax base and tax amount of gift tax were received even though the taxpayer did not receive a donation, but sought correction or revocation of the disposition rejecting the tax base and tax amount of gift tax, and even if the tax authorities asserted that the Plaintiff's claim for the gift tax was in violation of the principle of trust and good faith.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.