The Plaintiff does not constitute a title trustee of the instant shares.

In light of the Plaintiff’s share holdings, period, etc., it appears that the Plaintiff was sufficiently aware of the acquisition of the instant shares. Thus, the Plaintiff does not constitute a title trustee of the instant shares.

Article 4 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

2013 Consolidated 1199. Revocation of imposition of gift tax

○ ○

○ Head of tax office

June 19, 2014

July 3, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The disposition taken by the Defendant on May 1, 2013 by the Plaintiff on the imposition of gift tax OOOs and additional charges and increased additional OOs shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

"A. On April 23, 2012, the Defendant: (a) on May 30, 2008, on the grounds that BB received shares 14,250 shares of CCC (hereinafter referred to as “CCC”) from the Plaintiff, a son on May 30, 2008, and (b) on May 1, 2013, the Defendant determined and notified the OOO of the gift tax; and (b) on May 1, 2013, the Defendant: (a) the Plaintiff, a donee, was unable to pay the gift tax; (b) the Plaintiff, a donor, was designated as a joint and several taxpayer pursuant to Article 4(2)2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”); and (c) at the same time, the Plaintiff, a donor, was given a notice of payment of the said gift tax (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”); (d) there was no dispute over the grounds for recognition; and (e) the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The disposition of this case, based on the premise that the Plaintiff actually acquired the shares at the time, is unlawful, because the Plaintiff was merely a person who was entrusted with the shares of this case from the Chapter BB, which was the actual owner of the non-party company at around 2003. Furthermore, even if the Plaintiff is recognized as the actual owner of the shares of this case, the gift contract of this case between the Plaintiff and the headB was voluntarily prepared irrespective of the intent of the Plaintiff, who was the donor, and thus, is null and void as there is no agreement between the parties to the contract as of May 30, 208.

B. Relevant statutes

The facts of recognition are as stated in the attached Form 3.3.

"1) The headB had operated a personal business place from June 1, 1995, "CCC for the purpose of gold and parts business", and had it converted into a corporation on November 12, 2003 and established a non-party company for the purpose of automobile parts business." (ii) The status of holding stocks from 2003 to 2007 of the non-party company is as follows.

(unit: State, at par value, OOO, and at par value, hold shares)

Stockholders

203

204

(40,000 Free Capital Increases

from 2005 to 2007

Name

Relation

Chapter BB

Principal

30,600 (51%)

50,000 (50%)

60,000 (50%)

D Kim D Kim

wife

18,000 (30%)

28,000 (28%)

35,800 (29.83%)

EE

ASEAN

6,000 (10%)

1,000 (11%)

13,200 (11%)

ASEAN

5,400 (9%)

1,000 (11%)

1,000 (9.17%)

3) After January 18, 2008, the non-party company offered capital increase with 26,000 shares. The shares held in the name of 13,00 shares (50%) 6,50 shares (28%) 3,250 shares (1 November 27), and 3,250 shares (9.76%) were held in the name of 13,00 shares (50%).

"4) On March 31, 2009, the tax accountant office requested by the headB submitted a tax base return on the shares of the non-party company to the defendant on May 30, 2008 that the plaintiff donated 14,250 shares of the non-party company to the headB on May 30, 2008, to the non-party company OOB (OOOB value per share) and two copies of the share donation contract in which the signature of the plaintiff and the headB is entered or the seal is affixed (i.e., evidence No. 8, No. 7; hereinafter collectively referred to as the "the donation contract of this case"), and the securities transaction tax on which the plaintiff's seal is affixed. (ii) Meanwhile, the plaintiff was appointed as the auditor of the non-party company on Nov. 12, 2003, which is the date of incorporation, and retired on March 31, 2006, and was reregistered as the auditor on March 12, 2007.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, witness ParkF, part of testimony by the headB, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3-8, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 5-19, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) Whether the Plaintiff constitutes a title trustee of the instant shares

A) The fact of ownership of shares is to be proved by the tax authority through the data, such as the list of shareholders, the statement of stock transfer or the register of corporate register, etc. However, even in cases where it appears to be a single shareholder in light of the data, where there are circumstances, such as where the actual shareholder was stolen or registered in the name other than the real shareholder ownership, the actual shareholder is not deemed to be a shareholder, but the nominal owner who asserts that he is not a shareholder should prove that he is not a shareholder (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du1615, Jul. 9,

B) In the instant case, it is difficult to believe that the Plaintiff is a trustee of the instant shares or not, in light of the following circumstances, the witness ParkFF, and witnessB’s testimony corresponding thereto, as well as the overall purport of the inquiries and arguments with respect to the OO-dong Resident Center in Ulsan Metropolitan City, Ulsan Metropolitan City, the court’s O-dong Resident Center in Ulsan Metropolitan City, as well as the following circumstances revealed by examining whether the Plaintiff is a trustee of the instant shares. There is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

(1) Although the Plaintiff was in the third year of the establishment of the non-party company and was financially able to prepare purchase price of shares equivalent to the non-party company's KRW OOOOO members at the time of the establishment of the non-party company, and thereafter there was no participation in the management of the non-party company as a shareholder or auditor, or there was no distribution. However, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff was unaware of the fact that the Plaintiff acquired the shares of the non-party company or assumed office as the auditor, because the Plaintiff was a child of the headB, who was the non-party company founder.

(2) Since the incorporation of the non-party company on November 12, 2003, the Plaintiff continued to hold the shares of the non-party company until May 30, 2008, which was the date of the formation of the gift contract of this case. However, in light of the Plaintiff’s shares holding quantity, period, etc., such as allocating 5,600 shares in the process of gratuitous increase in 2004, the Plaintiff could have sufficiently known the fact of acquiring the shares of this case.

(3) The Plaintiff asserted that it was entrusted with the instant shares by the headB due to the managerial needs of the non-party company. However, not only at the time of the incorporation of the company, but also thereafter, the headB did not appear to have any special circumstance to title trust the shares of the non-party company in the future, and there is no circumstance to deny that the non-party company donated shares

(4) The non-party company was declared bankrupt by the Ulsan District Court on March 30, 2009 due to business deterioration, and the headB appears to have taken the procedure that the plaintiff donated the shares of this case to the headB in order to minimize the plaintiff's personal disadvantage prior to being declared bankrupt by the non-party company. However, if the non-party company did not reach bankruptcy, it seems that the plaintiff continued to hold the shares of this case, thereby enjoying the benefit therefrom.

(5) On November 25, 2008, the Plaintiff registered a personal place of business for the purpose of service and other processing at the place of business of the headB on January 6, 2009, and reported the closure of business on January 6, 2009. On July 5, 2010, the Plaintiff established and operated the GGH test, which is the same type of business as the non-party company, and it cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiff was engaged in any business unrelated to the non-party company or the Plaintiff had acquired and possessed the shares of this case without any opening of business.

C) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the premise that the Plaintiff did not actually acquire the instant shares is without merit.

2) Whether the donation contract under the instant donation contract is null and void

In light of the above facts, the testimony of the witness ParkF, and the headB alone is insufficient to recognize that each gift contract of this case and the securities transaction tax base return of March 31, 2009 were forged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. Rather, the above fact-finding, the following circumstances, namely, even if the person other than the plaintiff at the time of the formation of the gift contract of this case entered the Plaintiff’s signature and affixed a seal impression, it cannot be deemed that the headB was in order to minimize the Plaintiff’s personal disadvantage when the non-party company was declared bankrupt at the time of being declared bankrupt, and that the securities transaction tax report of March 31, 2009 attached the Plaintiff’s seal impression to the gift contract of this case submitted together with the Plaintiff’s seal impression, and the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have forged the gift contract of this case. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff was directly issued a certificate of personal seal impression at that time, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have violated the Plaintiff’s intent.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.