Dual title trust act is an active act of avoidance of taxation by making it difficult to track tax authorities on foreign financial accounts practically controlled and managed.

The act of establishing a foreign nominal company on the ground of a third party as a nonresident and acquiring and transferring stocks through the nominal company, in principle, is derived from the purpose of tax evasion in order to simply conceal the nominal owner without reasonable grounds, such as necessity for specific business implementation or practices in related industries concerning title trust of stocks of the nominal company located in the tax haven place.

The period of exclusion from the imposition of national taxes under Articles 51 and 26-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Seoul Central District Court 2017 Gohap56316 Undue enrichment

Gangwon*

*

2018.06.07

8.07.05

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant of Young-gu Office shall pay to the plaintiff 7***,760 won and 2.5% per annum from January 6, 2016 to March 6, 2016, 1.8% per annum from March 7, 2016 to March 14, 2017, 1.6% per annum from March 15, 2017 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

(a) Establishment* Beug&*, etc.*

1)* Beug&** Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "** Beug&*) has been established in Korea for continuous brewing operations in around 1971 and for the manufacture, sale, export, etc. of steel mills, steel mills, and other products, and has been supplied to **, etc., and the Plaintiff and its specially related persons hold 50% of the outstanding shares.

2) 칭다오 aaa bbb 컴퍼니 리미티드(*** ***i *** Co., Ltd., 이하 'aaa코리아'라 한다)는 1995년경 김@@이 1인 주주로 있는 홍콩 소재 무역회사인 cccCompany, 이하 'ww마인'이라 한다) 명의로 중국에 설립된 회사로 **베르그&**에 광물 가공원료를 납품하여 왔다.

3) The Pp International Scenz (*** International Invested, and on May 16, 2007, the trade name was changed to ** hk*** regardless of whether or not before or after the mutual change; hereinafter referred to as 'hk**') is a nominal company established in Hong Kong in the name of PP.

1) wwwma transferred all shares of yy Korea around 2002 to hk** yyy Korea.

2)** Beugg&** purchased 61.4% of the shares of yyy Korea from hk** on September 30, 202 to 120,000 US dollars (hereinafter referred to as '$61.4%' of the shares of yyy Korea. It divided and accepted the factory sector of yyy Korea, and entered into a contract for division and purchase of shares of the company ** Beug&**com *. As a result, ** Beug&* remitted of 120,00 US dollars to hk**** with the above money as hk***** (hereinafter referred to as 'proviol).

3)** Beug&** entered into a purchase and sale contract of shares (hereinafter referred to as the "sale contract of this case") with the content of purchasing 31.6% of the shares of yyy Korea from h*** on September 30, 2007 as the shares of 31.6% of the shares of yyy Korea (hereinafter referred to as "the shares of this case"). Accordingly, around November 2, 2007 *** Beug&** remitted USD 1.50,00 dollars to hk***** with the above money as hk***** with the subscription for new shares.

4) hk** around 2008 transferred h*****’s shares to Sino Cos International Lited (hereinafter “Sn*”) in the name of Sino Cos International Litd (hereinafter “Sn*”) established in Hong Kong in the name of KMEL, etc.

5) 김@@은 2010. 11.경 sn**모스의 발행주식 중 99.98%를 보유한 주주로 등재되었다.

C. The revised declaration and payment of the instant case

1) 피고 산하 서울지방국세청장은 2015년경 김@@의 sn**모스 주식 취득 자금의 출처 등에 대한 세무조사(이하 '이 사건 세무조사'라 한다)를 실시하였는데, 그 결과 원고가 명목회사인 hk***나 sn**모스를 통해 ha****를 실질적으로 소유하면서 sn**모스 등의 주식을 김@@에게 명의신탁한 것으로 보았다.

2) As a result of the instant tax investigation, on January 5, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) filed a revised return on global income tax for the year 2008 with the superintendent of the tax office affiliated with the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “reported return”); (b) pursuant to the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff: (c) deemed that: (a) around November 2, 2007, the amount of USD 1450,000, which was paid around November 2, 2007, minus USD 386,00,000, which was calculated by deducting USD 380,000,000, which is the acquisition value of theyy Korea’s stocks; (d) USD 97,287,287,200 x USD 1064,000 x 930/67,000 x 937.30/670; and (e) additionally paid the global income tax for the business year * 349,5050,27529,2757,2757,29.7.7

3) On January 5, 2016, according to the instant revised return, the Plaintiff additionally paid KRW 734,30,760, out of the total sum to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence No. 3, the purport of whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff merely omitted the report on deemed dividend income of this case. This is merely an act ordinarily incidental to a stock title trust. The Plaintiff did not engage in any separate and active act except for the nominal trust of stocks with no intent to evade tax. The deemed dividend income of this case should be subject to the exclusion period of 5 years stipulated in Article 26-2(1)1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 9263, Dec. 26, 2008; hereinafter the same) rather than the exclusion period of 10 years stipulated in Article 26-2(1)1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 9263, Dec. 26, 2008; hereinafter the same shall apply). The initial date of the exclusion period for deemed dividend income of this case is June 1, 2009, which was the date following the filing deadline of global income tax return of the Plaintiff in 208. Accordingly, the revised return of this case, which was filed five years after it is serious and invalid.

3. Determination

A. Determination as to the application of the exclusion period of 10 years

1) Article 26-2(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes provides that in principle, the exclusion period of imposition of national taxes other than inheritance tax and gift tax shall be five years from the date on which the relevant national taxes may be assessed, while in subparagraph 1, "where a taxpayer evades, receives a refund or deduction due to a fraudulent or other unlawful act", it shall be ten years from the date on which the relevant national taxes may be assessed.

The legislative intent of Article 26-2(1)1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes is to extend the exclusion period of the imposition of national taxes to 10 years, in principle, in a case where there is an unlawful act such as making it difficult to discover the taxation requirements of national taxes or making false facts difficult for the tax authorities to find that there is a tax evasion report, and thus it is difficult for them to expect the exercise of the imposition right. Therefore, the "Fraud and other unlawful act" under Article 26-2(1)1 of the former Framework Act refers to a deceptive act which makes it impossible or difficult to impose and collect taxes impossible or considerably difficult to do so without accompanying other acts, or making a false report under the tax law difficult. Therefore, even if income is obtained through a disguised title, it does not constitute a fraudulent act or other unlawful act under Article 26-2(1)1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, or a false act under the name of 60-2 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, or a false act under the name of 1,000,000.

2) 살피건대, 앞서 인정한 사실, 을 제12, 13, 18호증(가지번호가 있는 것은 가지번호를 포함한다)의 각 기재 및 변론 전체의 취지에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사실 내지 사정을 종합하여 보면, 원고가 s***컨설턴츠 등이 주주로 되어 있는 명목회사인 hk***를 통해 yyyy코리아의 주식을 취득하고 양도한 행위는 구 국제조 세조정에 관한 법률(2010. 1. 1. 법률 제9914호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 '구 국제조세 조정법'이라 한다) 제17조에 따른 특정외국법인의 유보소득으로서 배당간주되는 돈을 은폐하기 위한 목적에서 이루어진 것이고, 나아가 원고가 김@@ 명의로 s**컨설턴츠 등과 명의대여서비스계약을 체결한 등의 행위는 위 돈의 귀속주체를 은닉시키는 적극적인 행위라고 할 것인바, 이는 구 국세기본법 제26조의2 제1항 제1호 소정의 '사기 기타 부정한 행위'에 해당한다고 봄이 상당하다. 따라서 이 사건 간주배당소득에 관한 종합소득세 수정신고의 제척기간은 10년이 된다.

A) On January 1, 2002, the Plaintiff acquired all of the shares of yyy Korea from www immediately after establishing hk** in the name of the consortium sports and the KMEL.

The plaintiff is a tax haven under Article 17 (1) of the former International Tax Adjustment Act (Article 17 (1) of the former Act (Article 17 (1) of the former Act (Article 17 (1) of the same Act (Article 17 (1) of the same Act (Article 17 (1) of the same Act (Article 17 (1) of the same Act (Article 17 (1) of the same Act (Article 17 (1) of the same Act (Article 17 (1) of the same Act (Article 17 (1) of the same Act (Article 17) of the total number of shares ofyy Korea held in the name of the plaintiff** 2.65 million) and there is no fact that the plaintiff has paid taxes in Korea and abroad in the process of transferring hk**) of the total number of shares issued by a foreign corporation.

다) 그런데 원고는 2002. 1. 11.경 김@@ 등의 명의로 홍콩에 소재한 s**컨 설턴츠나 케이엠엘과 명의대여서비스계약을 체결하고 그 회사의 명의로 hk***를 설립한 것으로 보인다. 비록 특정한 소득에 관하여 조세 부담이 없거나 적은 해외 현지의 명목회사를 이용하여 주식을 보유하거나 양도하는 것이 금지되어 있지는 않다고 하더라도, 구체적인 사업 수행에 있어서의 필요성이나 조세피난처에 소재한 명목회사 주식의 명의신탁에 관한 관련 업계의 관행 등과 같은 합리적인 이유 없이, 단순히 귀속주체를 은닉하기 위하여 비거주자인 제3자를 내세워 해외 명목회사를 설립하고 그 명목회사를 통해 주식을 취득하고 양도한 행위는 원칙적으로 조세포탈의 목적에서 비롯된 것이라고 봄이 상당하다(이 점에서 원고가 내세우는 대법원 판례들은 이 사건에 원용하기에 적절하지 않다). **베르그&**이 yyyy코리아로부터 광물 가공원료를 제공받아 몰드 플럭스를 제조ㆍ납품하는 사업과 관련하여 원고가 조세피난처인 홍콩에 소재한 명목회사인 hk***의 주식을 명의신탁할 필요성이나 관련 업계의 관행이 있다고 볼 만한 자료는 발견되지 않는바, 이처럼 원고가 아무런 합리적인 이유 없이 명목회사인 hk***의 주식을 명의신탁하는 방법으로 그 소유구조를 불분명하게 한 것은 구 국제조세조정법상 간주배당소득에 관한 규정의 적용 대상이 되는 특정외국법인에 해당된다는 사실을 은폐하기 위한 적극적인 행위라고 봄이 상당하다.

라) 원고는 원고가 주주로 드러나지 않는 명목회사인 hk***나 시노코스 모스 명의로 해외 금융계좌를 실질적으로 지배ㆍ관리한 것으로 보인다. 게다가 hk*****나 sn**모스 명의의 해외 금융계좌에 관한 서류 등에도 원고로부터 명의신탁을 받은 김@@ 등 제3자가 서명한 것으로 보인다. 이와 같은 원고의 중첩적인 명의신탁 행위는 실질적으로 지배ㆍ관리하는 해외 금융계좌에 관한 과세당국의 추적을 한층 곤란하게 함으로써 그 계좌를 통해 얻는 소득을 은닉하는 것으로 과세를 회피하기 위한 목적이 인정되는 적극적인 행위라고 봄이 상당하다.

B. Determination as to the invalidity of the revised declaration of this case

As seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that the exclusion period of the revised return of global income tax on deemed dividend income of this case is ten years. The Plaintiff’s assertion to the effect that the revised return of this case was completed after the lapse of the exclusion period of five years, and that the defect is serious and obvious, and thus null and void is without merit, since it is a different premise.

4. Conclusion

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

Judges Kim Dong-jin

Judges Min Il-sung

Judges Yoon Jong-chul

The counterclaim claim is dismissed for lack of reasonable grounds.