early 201J 3383 ( December 28, 2011)

It is reasonable to deem that the transfer of title is completed according to the agreement on title trust.

It is reasonable to deem that the transfer of title is completed in accordance with the agreement on title trust in full view of the fact that the title was not trusted at the time of the request for examination by the Board of Audit and Inspection as to the initial disposition, and other relevant factors.

2012Guhap8237 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

AAA

Head of Sungnam Tax Office

September 26, 2012

October 24, 2012

1. The plaintiff (Appointed)'s claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

The imposition of KRW 00 of gift tax on December 1, 2009 and KRW 000 for gift tax on 2003 on the designated parties KimB, each of which was made by the head of Leecheon Tax Office against the designated parties on 1 December 2009, and the imposition of KRW 000 for gift tax on 2003 for the designated parties on December 1, 2009, and the imposition of KRW 000 for gift tax on 2003 for the designated parties, each of which was made by the head of Lee Jongcheon Tax Office against the Plaintiff on February 10, 2010, and the joint payment of gift tax on the designated parties (appointed parties) by the head of Ansan Tax Office on January 22, 2010 for the Plaintiff on January 22, 2010 for each of the following dispositions on December 201:

1. Details of the disposition;

A. EE Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “EE”) was established on April 23, 2002 for the purpose of manufacturing, selling, etc., the production machine of the old slune-style chain, which was created by removing foreign substances from the remains after cremation of the body.

B. On July 14, 2003, the plaintiff (designated parties, and hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff") completed the change of entry in the name of the AppointD (000 shares) with respect to 00 shares owned by himself (hereinafter referred to as "the shares of this case") and the name of the Selection KimB (00 shares) and the Selection LCC (00 shares) (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff, etc. in case where both the plaintiff and the Selection are mentioned).

C. From June 1, 2009 to July 3, 2009, the director of the Central Tax Office of Central Regional Tax Office: (a) conducted an investigation on the change of shares with shareholders of E and EE; (b) and (c) notified the Defendants of the tax data to regard the Plaintiff as the market price of the shares in this case and to select the name of the shares from the Appointd, KimB, and LCC; and (c) on the basis of the deemed donation of shares under a nominal title under Article 41-2 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7010, Dec. 303, 2003; hereinafter referred to as the “Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”); and (d) notify the Plaintiff of the taxation data to regard KRW 000 per share of the EE transferred to ParkG as the market price of the shares in this case and to calculate the value of the shares in this case.

D. (1) On December 1, 2009, the chief of the Defendant Leecheon Tax Office rendered a notice of payment of each gift tax to the Plaintiff on February 10, 2010, as a joint and several payment obligor for the Plaintiff, on the following grounds: (a) the amount of KRW 000 for the gift tax reverted to 2003, and (b) the amount of KRW 000 for the gift tax reverted to Selection KimB, and (c) the amount of the gift tax reverted to Selection KimB was not paid.

(2) On December 1, 2009, the head of Ansan Tax Office decided and notified 000 won of gift tax belonging to 2003 to the designated parties, and issued a notice of payment of gift tax to the Plaintiff on January 22, 2010 as a joint and several obligor for payment of the said gift tax to the Plaintiff on January 22, 2010.

E. On December 15, 201, the Plaintiff et al. dissatisfied with each of the above dispositions and filed a request for review with the Board of Audit and Inspection, and the Board of Audit and Inspection rendered a review of whether the Defendants’ determination of KRW 000 per share, which is the example of transaction transaction between the Plaintiff and Park GG, was reflected in the market price and whether the transferee’s subjective circumstances were reflected, and accordingly, the assessment basis and amount of gift

F. Since then, according to the results of the re-audit by the director of the Central District Tax Office, the Defendants evaluated the EE market price of the donated EE at approximately KRW 000 per share, and Defendant Leecheon Tax Office reduced or corrected, on April 24, 2012, the gift tax belonging to the designated person in 2003 at KRW 00,000, and on the designated person KimB, the gift tax belonging to the designated person in 2003 at KRW 00, respectively, and on April 25, 2012, the Defendant Anyang Tax Office reduced or corrected 00,00, the gift tax belonging to the designated person in 203 at KRW 0,00, and accordingly, the joint and several tax payments paid to the Plaintiff, the joint and several payment obligor, were also reduced or corrected in total (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 3, and Eul evidence 1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) From September 30, 1997 to January 5, 2004, the Plaintiff’s name and interest were leased KRW 000 to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff and the Selected agreed that the total amount of principal and interest was KRW 000 (= principal KRW 000 + interest KRW 000). Accordingly, on August 11, 2009, the Plaintiff paid the principal and interest on the loan to Hongdi as of August 11, 201, on the date of payment to the Selected. The Plaintiff issued and delivered a promissory note with KRW 1500,000, and KRW 00,000.

(2) From 2001 to May 4, 2007, the Plaintiff’s long-standing party KimB lent a total of KRW 000 to the Plaintiff, and from time to time, the Plaintiff repaid a total of KRW 000 by cash or account transfer. On August 11, 2009, the Plaintiff issued a promissory note document with the date of payment on September 11, 201 and repaid all the principal and interest on the loan by issuing a promissory note with the amount of KRW 000 (= principal KRW 000 + interest00) as the date of payment on September 11, 201.

(3) From 2001 to April 21, 2008, the Plaintiff, the head of the Dong of the high school, lent a total of KRW 000,000, and from time to time, the Plaintiff repaid the total of KRW 000 by cash or account transfer. On August 11, 2009, the Plaintiff issued a summary copy copy of the loan (= principal 000 won + interest 000 won + interest 000 won) on September 11, 201, and repaid all principal and interest on the loan.

(4) The Plaintiff, as her husband, has to procure expenses, children’s education expenses, and living expenses, etc. required for the research of machinery conducted by HH, is not entrusted with the name of the instant shares to the designated parties, RedD, KimB, and LCC, and so, the instant disposition by the Defendants was unlawful on a different premise, since it was not entrusted with the name of the instant shares to the designated parties, RedD, KimB, and LCC.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Relevant legal principles

In order to apply the constructive gift of shares under the provision of Article 41-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, a change of entry is made in the future between the actual owner and the nominal owner under an agreement on the nominal trust. In this case, where a change of entry is made without any agreement on the nominal trust, Article 41-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act cannot be applied. Meanwhile, where the shares owned by the obligor are transferred in the name of the obligee for the purpose of collateral, not only the obligee holds the formal ownership of the shares on behalf of the obligor, but also the obligee holds a security right for his own interest. Thus, the constructive gift of shares under the provision of Article 41-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act cannot be applied: Provided, That the title trust agreement on shares is not established only by an express contract between the nominal owner and the nominal owner, but also by an implied agreement, and whether there was any implied agreement on the nominal trust, the decision should be made reasonably by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances such as the relationship between the nominal owner and the account.

(2) Determination as to whether the Plaintiff entrusted the title of the instant shares

갑 제4호증의 1 내지 3， 갑 제5호증의 1 내지 3의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면 ① 원고와 선정자 홍DD는 2003. 9. 8. 원고가 선정자 홍DD로부터 금전을 차용함에 있어 담보용으로 원고 소유의 EE 주식 17，000주를 선정자 홍DD에게 이전 하여 보관하고， 선정자 홍DD는 원고와 사이에 채권채무관계가 종결되고 난 후 원고 의 요구가 있을 때에는 언제라도 EE의 주식 17，000주를 원고에게 즉시 반환하며， 원고로부터 대여금 전액을 상환받는 경우 외에 원고와 별도의 합의에 따라 담보로 보관 하고 있는 주식을 원고에게 반환할 수 있다는 내용의 합의각서를 작성한 사실，② 원고와 선정자 김BB는 2003. 9. 8. 원고가 선정자 검BB에게 담보용으로 이전하는 본 향의 주식수만 11，000주로 달리할 뿐 원고와 선정자 홍DD 사이에 작성된 합의각서와 같은 내용의 합의각서를 작성한 사실，③ 선정자 문CC은 2005. 5. 1l. 선정자 문CC 이 원고로부터 이전받아 보관하기로 한 EE의 주식 8，000주의 실제 소유자는 원고이고， 원고로부터 대여금 전액을 변제받거나 원고의 요청이 있으면 EE의 주식 8，000주를 언제든지 어떠한 이의 없이 원고에게 다사 반환하겠다는 각서를 작성한 사실，④ 원고는 2009. 8. 11. 선정자 홍DD에게 지급기일을 2010. 8. 11.로 한 액면금 000원의 약속어음 공정증서를， 선정자 김BB에게 지급기일을 2010. 9. 11.로 한 액면금 000원의 약속어음 공정증서를， 선정자 문CC에게 지급기일을 2010 9. 11 로 한 액면금 000원의 약속어음 공정증서를 각 발행 교부한 사실을 인정 할수는 있다. 그러나 갑 제2호증， 갑 제6호증， 갑 제7호증의 1， 2의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정，① 원고와 선정자 홍DD， 김BB 사이에 작성된 위 합의각서와 선정자 문CC 작성의 위 각서는 원고가 이 사건 주식에 관하여 선정자 홍DD， 김BB， 문CC의 명의로 명의개서를 마친 이후에 작성되었고， 위 합의 각서와 각서에는 원고의 채권자로 기재된 선정자 홍DD， 김BB， 문CC의 채권액과 변제기 등이 전혀 특정되어 있지 않은 점，② 채권담보의 목적으로 담보물을 이전한 채무자는 채무액 전액을 변제하는 즉시 채권자로부터 담보물을 회수하고， 채권자는 채무액 전액을 변제받을 때까지는 담보물을 보관하는 것이 일반적인데， 원고와 선정자 홍DD， 김BB는 선정자 홍DD， 김BB가 원고와 사이에 채권채무관계가 종결되고 난 후 원고의 요구가 있을 때에 보관하고 있는 EE의 주식을 반환하기로 하였고， 선정자 문CC은 선정자 문CC이 원고로부터 대여금 전액을 변제받는 경우 이외에도 원고의 요청이 있으면 어떠한 이의 없이 보관하고 있는 EE의 주식을 반환하기로 하는 등 위 합의각서와 각서에는 채권담보의 목적으로 담보물을 이전하거나 보관하는 채무자와 채권자의 일반적인 행태와는 다른 약정이 존재하며， 원고는 2006. 8. 31. 한II에게 선정자 홍DD의 명의로 명의개서된 17，000주 중 8，000주를 000원에 양도하기도 한 점，③ 원고가 선정자 홍DD， 검BB， 문CC에게 약속어음 공정증서를 각 발행， 교부하였으나， 그 발행시점이 중부지방국세청장의 EE 및 EE의 주주들에 대한 주식변동조사 이후인 점，④ 선정자 홍DD， 김BB， 문CC은 원고로부터 지급기일을 2010 8. 11.， 2010. 9. 11 로 한 약속어음 공정증서를 각 발행，교부받았을 뿐 채무액을 현실 적으로 변제받지 못하였음에도 원고가 약속어음 공정증서를 각 발행， 교부한 2009. 8. 11. 이 사건 주식에 관하여 원고의 명의로 명의개서를 다시 마쳐 주어 자신들의 이익 을 위하여 보유하여야 하는 담보물을 포기한 점，⑤ 원고 등은 피고들의 당초 처분에 불복하여 감사원에 심사청구를 하면서 피고들이 원고와 박GG 사이의 매매사례가액인 1주당 000원을 증여재산가액으로 하여 증여세를 산정， 부과한 것이 위법하다는 취지로 주장하였을 뿐 원고가 선정자 홍DD 김BB 문CC에게 이 사건 주식의 명의를 신탁한 것이 아니라는 취지의 주장을 하지는 않았던 것으로 보이는 점，⑥ 그 밖에 원고의 주장과 같은 원고와 선정자 홍DD， 김BB， 문CC의 관계 등을 종합하면， 원고는 채권담보가 아닌 명의신탁에 대한 합의에 따라 이 사건 주식에 관하여 선정자 홍 DD， 김BB， 문CC의 명의로 명의개서를 마친 것이라고 봄이 상당하다.

(3) Sub-determination

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit, and the disposition of this case by the defendants is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.