Seoul Administrative Court 2008Guhap28554 ( October 27, 2009)

Seocho 2007west 2089 (O6, 16, 2008)

Appropriateness of the assertion that the transfer of title trust to shares is the shares of the actual nominal owner on this disposition

It is reasonable to view that the person who deemed as the nominal owner acquired the real shares in view of the fact that the court was acquitted on the grounds that there was no evidence to acknowledge the nominal borrowed facts although he/she was prosecuted for evading capital gains tax due to title trust.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The defendants' appeal shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendants.

3. Determination of the court of first instance of KRW 727,261,708, among the orders of the court of first instance, KRW 727,261,70, KRW 389,656,071, KRW 389,656,070, respectively;

1. Purport of claim

On February 8, 2007, the head of Song-ri Tax Office revoked the disposition of imposition of KRW 727,261,70 ("727,261,708, as stated in the purport of the claim in the complaint") in excess of KRW 400,961,618 among the disposition of imposition of KRW 727,261,70 ("727,261,708, as stated in the purport of the claim in the complaint") and the head of Sung-ri Tax Office of February 13, 2007 against the plaintiffs on February 13, 2007.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and all the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court's explanation of this case is that "49,803 won" of the second 13th 13th '49,800 won of the second 13th '49,800 won', "2,711,884 won" is "2,71,884,000 won", "8th 14th '7 times', "the second 11th 3th 15 and 14th 'the second 15th 'the second 14th 'the second 14th 'the second 13th 'the second 13th 'the second 13th 'the second 27,261,710 won", "the second 17th 'the second 17th '7,260 ',700 won', "61,981 '6,975 '29,749', and 209 'the second ' of the 'the second '20.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and all appeals by the defendants are dismissed. However, the transfer income tax for the portion of 2005 imposed on the plaintiff i-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri