Incheon District Court 2012Guu1246 ( October 25, 2012)

Early High Court Decision 201J 3752 ( December 22, 2011)

Gift tax is illegal because there is no consent to the registration of shares in the name of the plaintiff.

(1) In light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff merely lent the name of the auditor and did not acquire shares; and (b) submitted a confirmation document to the tax authority that the Plaintiff did not acquire shares; and (c) the designation of the secondary taxpayer was revoked as the result of confirmation that the Plaintiff was not a shareholder, it is deemed that there was no consent to the registration

2012Nu36455 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

Park AA

Deputy Director of the Tax Office

Incheon District Court Decision 2012Guhap1246 Decided October 25, 2012

April 10, 2013

July 17, 2013

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s disposition imposing gift tax of KRW 000 on the Plaintiff on August 1, 2011 is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons why this Court should explain, and except for addition to the following paragraphs, the decision of this Court on the argument that the defendant emphasizes in particular or unfolded by this Court is identical to the entry of the reasoning in the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

The Defendant and ParkB agreed to register the instant shares in the name of the Plaintiff at the time of the establishment of V, and the instant disposition, premised on the existence of the title trust agreement between the Plaintiff and ParkCC, is lawful.

The evidence adopted in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as mentioned above and the whole purport of arguments, and the following circumstances, i.e., (i) ParkCC and KimJ requested that the plaintiff be registered as an officer at the court of first instance, and that at the time of the establishment of ParkCC and Kim J, the plaintiff be given consent, but there is no prior consent or approval for the entry of the plaintiff as a mother-child employee, and (ii) it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff was not a taxpayer at the time of establishment of the court of second instance as a taxpayer and that the plaintiff was not a taxpayer at the time of establishment of the court of second instance, and that the plaintiff was not a taxpayer at the time of establishment of the court of second instance, and that the plaintiff was not a taxpayer at the time of establishment of the court of second instance, and that the plaintiff was not a taxpayer at the time of establishment of the court of second instance, and that the plaintiff was not a taxpayer at the time of establishment of the court of second instance.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.