Seoul High Court 2013Nu30874 (Law No. 17, 2014)

It is reasonable to accept the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was no tax avoidance purpose in the title trust of the instant shares.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the above legal principles and records, it is just that the court below rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was no tax avoidance purpose in the title trust of the instant shares on the grounds stated in its reasoning, and there was no error by misapprehending the legal principles as to the purpose of tax avoidance in the constructive gift

Article 45-2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

2014Du13355 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

UnionA

The Director of Gangnam District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 2013Nu30874 Decided September 17, 2014

April 9, 2015

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

The legislative intent of Article 41-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6780, Dec. 18, 2002; hereinafter the same) is to recognize an exception to the principle of substantial taxation to the purport that the act of tax avoidance using the title trust system is effectively prevented, thereby realizing the tax justice. Thus, if the title trust was recognized to have been conducted for any reason other than the purpose of tax avoidance, and it is merely a minor reduction of tax incidental to the said title trust, it cannot be readily concluded that there was a "tax avoidance purpose" in such title trust. However, in light of the legislative intent as above, it cannot be deemed that there was no other purpose and there was no intent of tax avoidance. In this case, the burden of proving that there was no intention of tax avoidance exists a person who asserts it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du1931, Apr. 9, 2009).

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the above legal principles and the records, it is just that the court below rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was no tax avoidance purpose in the title trust of the instant shares on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, and there was no error by misapprehending the legal principles on the object of tax avoidance in the deemed donation of

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 3

In light of the circumstances as indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that the disposition imposing the gift tax of this case, which the Defendant calculated the value of the stocks of this case according to the supplementary assessment methods stipulated in Article 63(1)1(c) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, cannot be deemed as the market price of the stocks of this case, on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s transaction example or appraisal value

Examining the record in light of the relevant provisions and legal principles, the fact-finding and determination by the lower court is justifiable. In so doing, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the application of the market price of unlisted stocks or the supplementary method

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.