Whether it constitutes deemed donation of title trust

Since the Plaintiff bears the burden on the financing and repayment of funds used in acquiring the shares at issue, the title trust relationship for the shares at issue was established, there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was a clear purpose irrelevant to the tax avoidance in the title trust, or that there was no tax to be avoided at the time of the title trust.

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

2016Guhap102596 Designation of a person jointly and severally liable for gift tax, and revocation of the disposition of notice.

AA

Daejeon director of the tax office

November 24, 2016

January 26, 2017

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On September 1, 2015, the head of the Gu office revoked the designation and notification of joint tax liability for KRW 189,045,820 for the gift tax of KRW 189,045,820 for the Plaintiff as BB.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff is the representative director of cccc Co., Ltd. (former trade name: ○○○○, Co., Ltd.; hereinafter referred to as ccccccc) which is an emergency small and medium-sized enterprise operating the manufacturing and processing business of ○○○, ○○, ○○○, ○○○○-ro, ○○○-ro, ○○○○○-ro, ○○○○, 9

B. Around October 2012, ○○ Venture Group (○○○○○○○ Group, LLC, hereinafter “○○○○”) and ecccccck’s domestic business was holding 86,000 common shares of ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc. e. e. e. 2. i. e.

E. On November 20, 2015, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on November 20, 2015, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on March 22, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff is not a title trust to BB, but the instant disposition is unlawful on the ground that BB actually acquired the outstanding shares for the purpose of obtaining gains from transfer through M&A between CC and ○○○; and even if the title trust was made for the shares in question, it did not constitute a purpose of tax avoidance, such as global income tax, and thus, the instant disposition is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

The following facts are recognized by comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 9, Eul evidence Nos. 4 and 5, and the overall purport of pleadings:

1) From October 2012 to ○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as “○○○”)’s request, M&A, and negotiations for Ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccing on November 21, 201

2) BB paid a total of KRW 58,05,00 on November 28, 2012 and December 3, 2012, 2012 to dd and e as down payment (bb terminated a periodical deposit in the name of the principal and spouse fff, deposited in IBK Bank and IBK Bank to pay the down payment). On January 2, 2013, the Plaintiff withdrawn KRW 58,000,000 equivalent to the down payment from cccc and withdrawn from ○○○○○ Co.,, Ltd. [30%) the Plaintiff’s organization as a business operator registered on August 2, 2012, and returned KRW 7gg (30%), pp (30%), qq (40%, 40%, and 30% of the Plaintiff’s spouse’s r and 30% of the down payment (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s 300c stock”). The Plaintiff returned the said 30c stock to ○○.

3) BB borrowed 522,495,000 won from CC on December 17, 2012 and paid a balance on the outstanding stock payment date.

4) However, ○○ refused to conclude this Agreement on December 18, 2012, M&A; and accordingly, ○○ refused to conclude this Agreement.

On December 31, 2012, the Plaintiff and ○○ representative director ssss made an agreement to cancel the instant memorandum of Understanding, and agreed not to raise any objection with respect to the instant memorandum of Understanding. On the same day, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 2 billion from ○○ in order to resolve the fund liquidity problem caused by the failure to complete the agreement.

5) BB repaid KRW 523,497,045, including interest 1,002,045, on December 31, 2012, to ○○○○○○. The repayment was made in the form of (b) returning KRW 523,50,000,000, out of KRW 600,000, which was a part of the KRW 2 billion borrowed from ○○ upon the rescission of the agreement of the instant memorandum of Understanding, to bb, via the Plaintiff’s internal entry into ○○, and then (b) returned KRW 523,497,045,00 to cccc with the said funds. [b] The repayment flow of the loan to ccC in the form of (b)]

6) On August 29, 2013, the cc’s decision to acquire the cc’s own shares sold 675,000,000 won to ○○○○○ Co., Ltd., and bb received the amount equivalent to ccc as above. bb, as follows, remitted 581,00,000 won out of the sales price of the c’s shares to the Plaintiff via ○○○ and Hhh, and the Plaintiff repaid 602,250,000 won loans, including interest 2,250,000 won on August 30, 2013 (the flow of sales price of the c’s shares).

7) BB transferred KRW 90,000,000 equivalent to the profit margins generated through the trading process of the shares at issue to l ballot on September 12, 2013.

D. Determination

In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff, as the actual owner of the shares at issue, held a title trust with BB, in light of the facts acknowledged above and the overall purport of the arguments, and the following circumstances revealed, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff did not have the purpose of tax avoidance. Thus, the instant disposition that designated the Plaintiff as a joint and several tax obligor for the gift tax on the shares at issue and notified payment

1) 구 상속세 및 증여세법(2013. 1. 1. 법률 제11609호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 '상속세및증여세법'이라 한다) 제45조의 2 제1항은 "권리의 이전이나 그 행사에 등기 등이 필요한 재산의 실제소유자와 명의자가 다른 경우에는 국세기본법 제14조에도 불구하고 그 명의자로 등기 등을 한 날(그 재산이 명의개서를 하여야 하는 재산인 경우에는 소유권취득일이 속하는 해의 다음 해 말일의 다음 날을 말한다)에 그 재산의 가액을 명의자가 실제소유자로부터 증여받은 것으로 본다"고 규정하면서 그 예외로 제1호에서 "조세 회피의 목적 없이 타인의 명의로 재산의 등기 등을 하거나 소유권을 취득한 실제소유자 명의로 명의개서를 하지 아니한 경우"를 들고 있다. 위 규정의 입법취지는 명의신탁제도를 이용한 조세회피행위를 효과적으로 방지하여 조세정의를 실현한다는 취지에서 실질과세원칙에 대한 예외를 인정한 데 있으므로, 명의신탁의 목적에 조세회피의 목적이 포함되어 있지 않은 경우에만 같은 조항 단서의 적용이 가능하고, 이 경우 조세회피의 목적이 없었다는 점에 관한 입증책임은 이를 주장하는 명의자에게 있다. 따라서 조세회피의 목적이 없었다는 점을 조세회피의 목적이 아닌 다른 목적이 있었음을 증명하는 등의 방법으로 입증할 수 있으나, 입증책임을 부담하는 명의자로서는 명의신탁에 있어 조세회피 목적이 없었다고 인정될 정도로 조세회피와 상관없는 뚜렷한 목적이 있었고, 명의신탁 당시에나 장래에 있어 회피될 조세가 없었다는 점을 객관적이고 납득할 만한 증거자료에 의하여 통상인이라면 의심을 가지지 않을 정도로 입증하여야 한다(대법원 2006. 9. 22. 선고 2004두11220 판결, 대법원 2014. 1. 16. 선고 2013두16982 판결 등 참조). 한편 주식을 양수하려는 사람이 타인과의 약정에 따라 양수대금을 자신이 부담하면서 그 타인 명의로 주식을 취득하였다면 특별한 사정이 없는 한 그 명의인과 양수대금의 부담자 사이에 명의신탁관계가 성립한다고 할 것이다(대법원 2008. 11. 27. 선고 2008다62687 판결 참조). 2) 원고는 cccc의 최대주주이자 대표이사로서 ○○과의 M&A; 협상을 직접 주도하였고, 그 과정에서 쟁점주식의 양수도계약 체결, 매수가격 결정, 매수대금의 조성과 회수, 이자수수 등 쟁점주식의 취득과 처분에 관한 실질적인 의사결정을 담당하였다. 즉 앞서 살펴본 바와 같이 bbb는 쟁점주식의 매수대금 중 계약금은 자신의 적금 등을 해지하여 지급하였고, 잔금 522,495,000원은 cccc으로부터 차입하여 지급하였지만, 그 실질은 원고가 쟁점주식의 매수계약금 상당 부분을 2013. 1. 2. ○○랑으로부터 인출한 후 ○○내음을 거쳐 bbb에게 반환하였고, 이 사건 양해각서의 합의해제에 따라 ○○으로부터 차용한 금원의 일부인 6억 원 중 523,500,000원을 ○○내음을 거쳐 bbb에게 송금한 후 bbb로 하여금 위 자금으로 cccc에 대한 차입금(이자 포함) 523,497,045원을 상환하게 한 것이었다. 이로써 bbb는 쟁점주식 매매잔금 지급을 위하여 cccc으로부터 차입한 금원에 대한 이자도 전혀 부담하지 아니하였을 뿐만 아니라 쟁점주식의 매수대금을 실질적으로 부담하지 아니하였다. 나아가 bbb는 쟁점주식을 2013. 8. 29. cccc에게 매도하고 받은 매도대금 중 581,000,000원을 ○○내음, hhh를 거쳐 원고에게 송금하였는데, 원고는 그 다음날인 2013. 8. 30. 이자(2,250,000원)를 포함한 차입금 602,250,000원을 ○○에게 상환함으로써, ○○으로부터의 차입금에 대한 이자도 bbb가 아닌 원고가 부담하였다. 결국 쟁점주식을 취득함에 있어 사용된 자금의 조달, 상환 및 이에 대한 최종적인 이자와 위험은 전부 bbb가 아닌 원고가 부담하였고, bbb는 취득자금 및 이에 대한 이자를 전혀 부담하지 않은 채 자기 명의로 쟁점주식을 명의개서하였을 뿐이므로, 원고와 ddd 사이에 쟁점주식에 대한 명의신탁관계가 성립하였다고 할 것이다. 3) 더욱이 bbb는 쟁점주식을 매도함으로써 발생한 매매차익인 90,000,000원 상당액을 자신이 보유하지 아니하고 2013. 9. 12. lll에게 송금하였는바, bbb로서는 쟁점주식의 매매과정을 통하여 경제적 위험을 부담한 바도, 이익을 향유한 바도 없다고 할 것이다. 도리어 원고는 위와 같이 ○○내음과 hhh, lll 등 관련자들을 매개로 하여 쟁점주식의 매매와 관련한 자금의 흐름을 조성함으로써 쟁점주식의 명의신탁 사실을 은폐하려 하였다고 봄이 상당하다.

4) As to this, the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that bB made an investment to ○○○ for the purpose of obtaining gains from transfer through short-term investment, and that bB made an investment to bB’s actual acquisition of outstanding shares, and that M&A did not mean that bB made an investment, and that bB made a return of the acquisition fund of outstanding shares to bB in an oral manner. However, if bbB actually acquired outstanding shares, it is reasonable that bB bears its risk bB. If the Plaintiff bears interest on the loan from ○○○, the Plaintiff did not have any reason to deliver the amount equivalent to the acquisition fund of the outstanding shares to bB until bB bears interest on the loan from ○○○ (a debtor in relation to bB) (i.e., the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff, but as long as the said loan was paid as bB was used by bB to acquire the outstanding shares, bB would accord with the economic substance that bB would have made an investment in order to obtain a short-term investment profit).

5) In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that there was no tax avoidance purpose because the pertinent shares were scheduled to be sold within one month from the date of acquisition. However, if the Plaintiff had sexual intercourse with ccc and ○○○ M&A as alleged by the Plaintiff, it would have been possible for cc and ○○ to earn approximately KRW 800 million profit margin through the pertinent shares. However, the Plaintiff appears to have been able to avoid gift tax by offering bB to bB who had no economic power to acquire the pertinent shares for the purpose of gifting the amount equivalent to the above profit margin amount, and acquiring them in the name of bbB, and then acquiring them in the name of bB. In addition, inasmuch as the Plaintiff intended to sell the pertinent shares and the key shares in the name of the Plaintiff to ○○○ after sexual death, due to the deduction of capital gains tax in the name of bbb and reduced capital gains tax, there was no clear evidence that there was no issue or tax avoidance purpose in the future between the Plaintiff and bB.

3. Conclusion

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