Busan District Court 2015Guhap21262 (Law No. 18, 2016)

In title trust, it should be proved that the obvious purpose of tax avoidance and that there is no tax avoidance at the time or in the future.

(As in the judgment of the first instance court, although the Plaintiff alleged that it was stolen, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff was committed as a unilateral act, such as an auditor, etc., and that it was sufficiently proven to the extent that it did not have suspicion if the entry was made for a clear different purpose, which is irrelevant to the purpose of tax avoidance, or there was no tax to be evaded in the future at the time of entry of a change of title, or there

Donation of trust property under Article 45-2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

2016Nu22438 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing gift tax

AA

○ Head of tax office

Busan District Court Decision 2015Guhap21262 Decided August 18, 2016

on January 20, 2010

on October 10, 2017

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

On June 10, 2014, the judgment of the first instance court of the Gu office is revoked. The Defendant’s disposition imposing ○○○○○○ upon the Plaintiff on June 10, 2014 and the disposition imposing ○○○○○○○○ upon the Plaintiff on July 1, 2014 is revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows: (a) except for the addition of the judgment on the matters for which the plaintiff asserts again in the trial under Paragraph (2) below, the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the court of first instance; and (b) thus, (c) pursuant to Article 8(2

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the name was stolen

The plaintiff asserts that he received a request from BB to submit documents necessary for business operations and sent his certificate of personal seal impression. However, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff was aware of the title trust of each of the shares of this case since October 2009 and around September 201 through October 10, 201, when the plaintiff transferred each of the shares of this case to BB, there is no assertion or proof as to the existence of any circumstance to deliver necessary documents, such as his certificate of personal seal impression, for any reason related to the business of BB (in addition, it is difficult to obtain a certificate of personal seal impression to deliver his certificate to the same person on the ground that the same person requests for his own business without any special circumstance). In light of the fact that the plaintiff issued necessary documents, such as his certificate of personal seal impression, etc., related to the business of BB at the request of BB, and that the plaintiff prepared a title trust agreement with BB on the second shares of this case. Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit

B. The assertion that there was no purpose of tax avoidance

1) The Plaintiff asserted that the title trust of the first shares was made for the purposes of 100 shares shares held by 200 shares when the Plaintiff received loan guarantee from 100 shares, but it was difficult for 100 shares held by 10 shares held by 200 shares for 10 shares held by 20 shares for 10 shares held by 10 shares held by 20 shares. However, according to the evidence No. 8-3 and No. 2-1 shares held by 1 shares held by 10 shares for 10 shares held by 200 shares, it was difficult for 100 shares held by 10 shares held by 10 shares held by 200 shares for 200 shares held by 10 shares held by 10 shares held by 200 shares for 200 shares held by 10 shares held by 200 shares held by 100 shares held by 100 shares held by 200 shares held by 100 shares held by 200 shares.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and it is so decided as per Disposition.