deemed donation of stock title trust;

It is reasonable to view that all the procedures for the transfer of stock name and the payment of stock price have been conducted under the title trust in view of the fact that the truster led to the disposal thereof.

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

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 321,787,450 on October 6, 2008 against the Plaintiff was revoked.

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by Gap evidence 2-1 through 3, Gap evidence 5, 6, Eul evidence 1, and Eul evidence 4-1, respectively.

A. The director of the Gwangju Regional Tax Office conducted an investigation into the source of funds from the Plaintiff’s assets from July 14, 2008 to May 31, 2008, and confirmed that the Plaintiff’s actual owner of BB comprehensive Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “BB Comprehensive Construction”)’s non-listed stocks 29,500 shares, the Plaintiff entered as the Plaintiff acquired on April 1, 2003, 500 shares of DD (hereinafter “DD”)’s non-listed stocks, 97,450 shares issued by the DD Industry (hereinafter “EE Industry”) and 97,450 shares issued by the Plaintiff on May 22, 2003, the Plaintiff confirmed that the gift tax should be imposed on the Plaintiff, the nominal owner of BB Comprehensive Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “BE Industry”) under the name of the Plaintiff, as the property of the Plaintiff.

B. On October 6, 2008, the defendant decided and notified the plaintiff on April 1, 2003 gift tax of KRW 3,500,000 on the gift tax of DDR shares and KRW 321,787,450 on the gift of EE industry as of May 22, 2003 (hereinafter "the disposition of decision and notification of KRW 321,787,450 on the gift of E industry") in accordance with the above taxation data.

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on January 5, 2009, but was dismissed on June 3, 2009. The Plaintiff’s assertion as to whether the instant disposition is legitimate or not.

The amount of KRW 2450,000,000 paid-in capital for the EE industry 245,000 shares, including the instant shares, was merely the accounting of the funds of GG Housing Limited Liability Company (hereinafter “GG Housing Limited Company”) and the network lowestA does not acquire 245,00 shares that were paid-in capital. Thus, the title trust relationship between the Plaintiff and the network lowestA is not established. Even if the Plaintiff and the network lowestA were to have a title trust relationship with respect to the instant shares, the Plaintiff did not acquire the instant shares for the purpose of tax avoidance, since the circumstances in which the network lowestA was unable to perform economic activities at the time, and did not have a title trust for the purpose of tax avoidance.

In addition, while the EE industry has no net assets, it is illegal to calculate the amount of gift tax by evaluating the value of each share of 10,000 won, even though it is deemed that the value of each share of this case is zero won.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Determination on whether title trust is held

In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in the statements in Gap evidence 3-1 through 4, Gap evidence 6, 7, Eul evidence 4-1 through 7, Eul evidence 5, and Eul evidence 5, the EE industry is a corporation established for the lease and management of unsold apartment houses in lots of GG housing, and all the actual managers of the EE industry and GG housing have been led by themselves, while offering capital increase in the EE industry, they have managed all the procedures for the transfer of shares and the payment of stock price. The fact that the plaintiff actually paid the purchase price, not the plaintiff actually paid the purchase price in this case, but the deceased LA raised the purchase price in the form of a deposit and provisional payment. In light of this, it is reasonable to view that the trust was made to the plaintiff with the reason of the deceased LA, and there is no evidence to conclude otherwise. Accordingly, the plaintiff's assertion in this part is without merit.

(2) Determination on the value of the EE industry

Next, considering the overall purport of arguments as to whether the value of the EE industry is lawfully assessed, Gap evidence 6, Eul evidence 4-1, the total amount of collateral loans 2.195 billion won, lease deposit 2.355 billion won, GG house debts 4.5 billion won, and 5 billion won in total, and assets are 2.5 billion won in cash (the total amount of capital of 50 billion won and capital of 2.45 billion won and capital of 2.5 billion won, the total amount of capital of 1.5 billion won per share) and 50 billion won per share (the total amount of capital of 50 billion won and 1.5 billion won per share). Accordingly, the defendant is not entitled to 2.5 billion won in the net asset value of the E industry under the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act 2.3 billion won in the calculation method of the net asset value of 1.5 billion won in total (the same shall apply to the inheritance tax and gift tax amount of 1.5 billion won in total amount per share).3 billion won before.1.3 billion won

(3) Determination on the purpose of tax avoidance

The legislative purport of Article 41-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is to effectively prevent the act of tax avoidance using the title trust system, thereby recognizing an exception to the principle of substantial taxation. Thus, if the title trust was recognized to have been made for any reason other than the purpose of tax avoidance, and it is merely a minor reduction of tax incidental to the said title trust, it cannot be deemed that the purpose of tax avoidance under the proviso of Article 41-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act exists. In this case, the burden of proving that there was no purpose of tax avoidance is against the person claiming it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Du7733, May 12, 2006). Meanwhile, the burden of proving that there was no purpose of tax avoidance, other than the purpose of tax avoidance, can be proved by the method of proving that there was no purpose of tax avoidance. However, the nominal owner who bears the burden of proof, as the title trust, has no relationship with the tax avoidance and that there was no objective at the time of tax avoidance (see, 2000.

In light of the following circumstances, i.e., (i) the net maximumA has already been in arrears with national taxes equivalent to KRW 96,656,00 until November 29, 2001; (ii) the net LA has a high possibility of collecting delinquent taxes on the shares in this case; (iii) the net LA could not reduce the comprehensive income tax if dividends were paid by title trust to the Plaintiff; (iv) it is difficult to avoid the secondary tax liability to be charged as an oligopolistic shareholder; and (iii) whether there was a tax avoidance purpose or not, as alleged by the Plaintiff, it is difficult to determine whether there was a tax avoidance purpose as of the date of title trust; and (v) it is difficult to conclude that there was no evidence that there was no other tax avoidance purpose, including the secondary tax liability as an oligopolistic shareholder after the title trust of this case, and the cumulative tax burden under the name of the oligopolistic shareholder, as alleged by the Plaintiff, under the name of 100 of the former Income Tax Act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.