The instant shares cannot be deemed as title trust to the Plaintiff.

The defendant's assertion that the shares of this case were held in title trust to the plaintiff is insufficient.

Article 41-2 (Presumption of Donation of Title Trust Property)

2017-Gu Partnership-6518 Revocation of Imposition of Gift Tax

AAA Foreign1

O Head of the tax office other than 1

December 6, 2017

January 17, 2018

1. The imposition of each gift tax listed in the separate sheet No. 1 that the Defendants against the Plaintiffs shall be revoked.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. DDR Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Co., Ltd.") is a company established on September 21, 200, and the plaintiffs completed each transfer of 5,200 shares issued by the key company on September 21, 200, each of the 5,200 shares issued by the key company on September 21, 200 (10%) and held office or held office as an executive officer of the key company.

B. After conducting an investigation from September 15, 2014 to October 15, 2014, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office: (a) deemed BB as an actual owner of outstanding shares; and (b) notified the Defendants of the taxation data by deeming BB as a title holder; and (c) the Defendants applied the provision on deemed donation of trust property under the name of the trust property under Article 41-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6780, Dec. 18, 2002; hereinafter “former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”); (d) Defendant ○○ Head of the Seoul Regional Tax Office decided and notified the principal and additional taxes on Plaintiff H on May 1, 2015; and (e) Defendant △△△ Head of the Seoul Regional Tax Office determined and notified each of the principal and additional taxes on the shares at issue as indicated in attached Table 1’s list (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiffs dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an objection on June 10, 2015, and filed a tax appeal on October 6, 2015, and Plaintiff HH on October 7, 2015, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the said appeal on March 15, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 1-1, 2, Evidence No. 2, Evidence No. 5-1 through 14, Evidence No. 1-2, Evidence No. 1-1, 2, Eul No. 11 and 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

Since the Plaintiffs actually subscribed to the outstanding shares and paid the price thereof to the shareholders’ register and was not nominal by BB, the Plaintiffs were the actual owners of the outstanding shares, and thus, the instant disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiffs constituted the title trustee of the outstanding shares is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

Attached Form 2 is as shown in the relevant statutes.

C. Determination

1) The provision on deemed donation of trust property under Article 45-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act applies to cases where the actual owner and the nominal owner are different in property (excluding land and buildings) requiring registration, etc. for the transfer or exercise of rights. In such a case, the tax authority must prove that the nominal owner of the relevant property is different from the actual owner (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du5404, Sept. 24, 2009). Therefore, in order to apply the provision on deemed donation of the outstanding shares listed by the Plaintiffs on the shareholder registry of the company at issue in the instant case as a shareholder, the Defendants, the tax authority, in accordance with the above legal doctrine, should prove that the Plaintiffs, who

2) According to the evidence of this case: BB No. 13; BB No. 17; BB No. 18; BP No. 18; and BP No. 1 and 2 on the same day as the plaintiffs, the actual owner of the above PP-related company’s shares was investigated by the prosecutor’s office on December 4, 2014 and December 10, 2014; CP No. 5,200 shares of the above PP-related company should be deemed as BB; BP-related company shares were also 10% of the outstanding shares of the Plaintiff SP-related company; and the Plaintiff’s 5,000 shares were also aware of the issue of the PP-related company shares in the name of the PP-related company; or the Plaintiff’s 20,000,0000 shares were withdrawn from the PP-related company’s shares issued under the name of the PP-related company’s name by 10,014.

3. Conclusion

Since the plaintiffs' claims are well-grounded, it is decided as per Disposition by admitting all of them.