Daegu District Court 2012Guhap2575 ( November 01, 2013)

The title trust of shares should be deemed to have the purpose of tax avoidance.

Although the Plaintiff asserts that the instant stock title trust was due to the legitimate purpose of management, it cannot be readily concluded that there is no purpose of tax avoidance. Therefore, the instant disposition is legitimate.

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

2013Nu1837 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

1. ParkA 2. GoldB 3. RoCC 4. Round 5. EE 6. GaF

7. GG 8. UH 9. Ansan II 10. Park JJ 11. YK 12. YY 12. YL

2. The tax office of the Daegu District Tax Office:

Daegu District Court Decision 2012Guhap2575 Decided November 1, 2013

June 20, 2014

July 18, 2014

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The decision of the first instance court is revoked. As to the plaintiff Park J-J, and the former KK, the defendant Kimcheon-cheon Tax Office revokes the disposition of imposition of each gift tax stated in the column of "amount of gift tax" and "amount of each gift tax recorded in the column of "amount of each gift tax", with respect to the plaintiff Park J-J, and the former KK. The defendant Kimcheon Tax Office revokes District Tax Office revokes all the disposition of imposition of each gift tax stated in the column of "amount of each gift tax", and the reasons therefor.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) by adding the judgment as stated in Paragraph (2) below to the plaintiff ParkJ's argument; (b) by changing the attached disposition statement of the court of first instance and related Acts and subordinate statutes to the annexed disposition statement of this court; and (c) as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for dismissal or modification of some of the contents as stated below, Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be accepted as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act; (d) "No. 20 of April 20, 2012" as "No. 20 of April 19, 2012"; and (d) "No. 12-20 of the attached disposition of the court of first instance" as "No. 12-12 of the judgment of the court of first instance" as "No. 20 and No. 21-4.

A. Plaintiff Park J-J’s argument

Article 45-2 (1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "if the property is a property subject to a transfer of a title, it refers to the day after the end of the year following the year in which the date of acquisition of ownership falls, which is the day after the end of the year in which the date of acquisition of ownership is included" rather than a provision on the date of donation, it shall be deemed that the gift tax should be levied on the case where the transfer of title is not made by the end of the year following the year in which the date of acquisition of ownership falls, notwithstanding the acquisition of ownership of shares, and on June 12, 2009, it shall be deemed that the ownership of the NN-Development shares acquired under the Plaintiff Park J's name is transferred to his own name on or before the date when the requirements for imposing gift tax are established. Thus, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have received a donation under Article 45-2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act on the said shares under the Plaintiff Park J's name, but the disposition of gift tax is unlawful."

Where an actual owner or title holder of the property necessary for transfer or exercise of the right (excluding land and buildings; hereafter the same shall apply in this Article), notwithstanding Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, is different from one another, the value of such property shall be deemed donated to the actual owner on the date when such property is registered, etc. as the title holder (where such property is subject to transfer of title, referring to the date following the end of the year whereto belongs the date of acquisition of ownership), and where such property is registered under another person's name or transfer of title is not made under the name of the actual owner without any purpose of evading taxes under the proviso to Article 45-2 (1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (hereafter referred to as "where such property is subject to transfer of title, referring to the date on which the entry of title holder is made under another person's name or under the name of the actual owner who acquired the ownership, the date on which the transfer of title is made under the name of another person's name or under the name of another person's name under the proviso to paragraph (1) of the same Act shall be deemed to have not been prepared under paragraph (1).

Therefore, the above argument by the plaintiff Park J is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiffs' claims in this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.