As to the assertion that the shares of this case were not donated

Where a taxpayer has prepared a written confirmation to the person who is a taxable fact, the evidence of the written confirmation cannot be readily denied, unless there is any special circumstance to the effect that it is difficult to consider it as evidence for specific facts due to lack of the content thereof.

Article 2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

2014Guhap69761 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

***

*The Director of the Tax Office

May 21, 2015

June 25, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

(1) The date of the disposition ( August 22, 2013) stated in the application for amendment of the purport of the claim of this case, which the Defendant imposed upon the Plaintiff on August 1, 2013, is deemed to be a clerical error (see subparagraph (1) 2).

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The non-party male tugboat company (hereinafter referred to as "non-party company") filed a report at the time of filing a corporate tax return

The details of changes in stocks shall be as follows:

Stockholders

At the time of establishment

For the end of 1998

For the end of 2002

end of 2008

2,**

2,**

2,**

2,**

CHAPTER*

2,**

J*

2,**

4,***

4,***

4,***

L**

3,**

3,**

CHAPTER*

3,**(*)

******

Stock Company

3,** (B)

Sub-committees

10,**

10,**

10,**

10,**

1. Maximum* on December 16, 2002, the representative director of the non-party company, 3,000 shares of the non-party company (hereinafter referred to as "the shares of the non-party company").

Food is transferred to the head* who is an adviser of the non-party company to KRW 45 million (=3,000 x 15,000).

report to be filed.

(2) He has reported that he has donated the shares of this case on November 2008 to Nonparty************* Company (hereinafter referred to as the “Corporation”).

B. The director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office concluded that, from May 2, 2013 to June 30, 2013, the tax investigation of the non-party company (hereinafter referred to as the "tax investigation of this case") was conducted with respect to the non-party company from May 2, 2013 to June 30, 2013, "the actual owner of the non-party company at the time of the establishment of the non-party company was the non-party *, not the maximum**, but the maximum** was the transfer of the shares of this case to the head** on December 16, 2002, the defendant notified the defendant of this fact."

C. Accordingly, on August 1, 2013, the Defendant decided and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 000,000,000 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff, who is dissatisfied with the instant disposition, brought an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on October 24, 2013.

B. On July 9, 2014, the dismissal decision was issued.

[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2, 3-1 to Gap evidence 4-1

4. Each entry of evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) At the time of the incorporation of the non-party company, the actual owner of the instant shares was maximum*, and the Plaintiff purchased the instant shares from the last** on December 16, 2002 to the head** in title trust after purchasing them from the last** on December 16, 2002. Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition that the Plaintiff deemed that the instant shares were donated from Kim* was unlawful.

2) On September 2010, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office has already conducted a tax investigation on the change in ownership of the instant shares, and confirmed that “the Plaintiff acquired the instant shares directly from the largest**, and transferred them to the head** again after title trust,*************************** by taking into account the change in ownership of the instant shares. Therefore, the instant tax investigation constitutes a duplicate investigation, and thus, the instant disposition based on the said investigation is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes shall be as follows.

C. Determination

1) The following facts are acknowledged in light of the following facts, even if the tax authorities were to obtain a written confirmation from the actual owner of the shares at the time of incorporation of the non-party company 0, that the non-party 1 was the owner of the shares at the time of entry of the non-party 1, and that it is difficult for the non-party 2 to use the written confirmation as evidence of the specific facts due to the lack of the details or contents of the statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du2560, Dec. 6, 202). The non-party 2 appeared to be the owner of the non-party 1's shares at the time of entry of the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the original owner of the shares at the time of entry of the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the defendant ** the non-party 2, the title trust **

2) Whether the instant tax investigation constitutes an illegal duplicate investigation

Article 81-3 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 6782, Dec. 18, 2002; hereinafter the same) provides that "no re-audit shall be made against the same tax item and the same taxable period", and that "the tax investigation in 2010, tax investigation in 2008, *** and ************** whether to impose gift tax on the Plaintiff considering the substance of the stock transfer transaction between the head of the tax investigation in this case as the title trust with the shares in this case ******** as the substance of the stock transfer transaction in this case *** as the donation of the shares in this case **** as the donation of the shares in this case to the Plaintiff, taking account of the overall purport of arguments in the items in subparagraphs 1-2 and 4, and the tax investigation conducted in 2013, the plaintiff's assertion that the above part of the tax investigation in this case is prohibited as follows."

The investigation period

Transaction Subject to Investigation

Issues

Tax Investigation in 2010

208

CHAPTER**********

(2) Transfer of shares between the parties

Whether to impose gift tax on the Plaintiff by deeming that the substance of the above transaction was nominally held by the Plaintiff**** as the shares in this case.

This case’s tax investigation

202

L*** and head*

Transfer Transactions of Stocks

The above substance of the transaction is Kim* that the Plaintiff donated the shares of this case.

Whether gift tax should be imposed on the person

3. Conclusion

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

shall be ruled.