logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016. 08. 26. 선고 2015누65638 판결
원고들이 명의신탁 합의 및 조세회미목적이 부존재하였는지 여부[국승]
Title

Whether the plaintiffs have no purpose of the title trust agreement and tax return agreement or not

Summary

(The judgment of the first instance) The Plaintiffs were entitled to a title trust agreement from the title trustee, and the Plaintiffs were subject to a tax avoidance purpose in that they avoided capital gains tax and comprehensive income tax, and the initial disposition is legitimate.

Related statutes

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

Cases

Seoul High Court 2015Nu65638 Revocation of Disposition Imposing Gift Tax

Plaintiff

AA and 7

Defendant

00. Head of tax office and 5

Conclusion of Pleadings

December 2, 2016

Imposition of Judgment

on October 26, 2016

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1. Purport of claim

Each gift tax imposition disposition listed in the attached Table 1 attached hereto by the Defendants shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the plaintiffs in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the gift tax listed in the attached Table 1 by the defendants

Each disposition of imposition against the plaintiffs in the disposition of imposition shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows, except for the rejection of each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 33 (including additional numbers) which is insufficient to admit the plaintiffs’ assertion as evidence submitted in the trial, and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning of the first instance court. Thus, the part which is dismissed or added by the court pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

○ 6th of the first instance judgment, “The evidence mentioned above” was added to “the results of inquiry and reply to the fact-finding securities of this court.”

○ The 8th judgment of the first instance court stated that "the plaintiff" in the 11th judgment of the first instance court was "the plaintiff."

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims shall be dismissed in its entirety due to the lack of the reasons. Accordingly, the judgment of the court of first instance is just and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow