National High Court Decision 2006Du2553 (Law No. 11, 2007)

Seoul Administrative Court 2007Guhap22597 ( November 06, 2008)

The legitimacy of the assertion that the shares were inevitably nominal in accordance with the Integrated Broadcasting Act, etc.

Although there is no provision that restricts the ownership of shares or shares of the cable broadcasting business entity under the Integrated Broadcasting Act, it is difficult to view that there was no tax avoidance purpose because the Plaintiff’s shares were 52% of the deemed acquisition tax subject to deemed acquisition tax.

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

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

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke the imposition of the gift tax of KRW 384,328,00 on November 1, 2005 against the plaintiff on November 1, 200.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 31, 200, ○○○○○○○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “○○○○○○○”) acquired 5,400 shares (acquisition value 1,086,30,000, hereinafter referred to as “the shares of this case”) under the Plaintiff’s name,” and “B. The Defendant, on November 1, 2005, applied Article 41-2 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6780, Dec. 18, 2002), deemed that the Plaintiff was donated the shares of this case from this○○○○○○, and imposed KRW 384,328,00 on the Plaintiff for gift tax for 200,” and the Plaintiff filed a request for a judgment of dismissal on June 30, 2006, but the Plaintiff did not object to the instant disposition and filed an appeal to the National Tax Tribunal on June 30, 2007.”

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 10, Evidence No. 10, and Evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

① On January 12, 200, the Broadcasting Act (amended by Act No. 6139, Jan. 12, 200; hereinafter “Integrated Broadcasting Act”) was enacted and promulgated on January 12, 200. Since ○○○○○○○○○○’s shares or equity shares of the cable broadcasting business operator were not owned by the said operator in the name of the said operator, the purpose of this Act was to prevent the Plaintiff from acquiring the shares or equity shares under the name of the said operator, and to prevent the Plaintiff from acquiring the shares or equity shares under the name of the said operator, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s shares or equity shares, the purpose of this Act was to ensure that the Plaintiff had no interest in converting the shares or equity shares of the said operator into the CATV broadcasting business, and to ensure that ○○○○○○○○○○○’s shares or equity shares were to have been acquired under the name of the said operator, and thus, the Plaintiff would have been able to acquire the shares or equity shares of the said operator.

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

C. Determination

In light of the following facts, it is difficult to believe that the testimony of the witness Lee ○○, who corresponds to the fact that there was no tax avoidance purpose in the title trust of the instant shares, is insufficient to recognize the evidence alone, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(3) If ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s shares were acquired under the name of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s name, it is difficult to view that ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s shares were owned by ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s shares, and that ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s shares, and that ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s shares, and that ○○○○○○○○’s shares were owned by 5, supra, with the overall purport of pleadings. As such, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff’s shares were more likely to have been combined with the Korea Broadcasting Act.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.