Seoul Administrative Court-2015-Gu Partnership-61726 ( October 23, 2015)

Title trust of the shares of this case for the purpose of acquiring status of stay cannot be deemed tax avoidance purpose.

(1) It cannot be deemed that the title trust of the instant shares was made for the purpose of acquiring the status of corporate investment sojourn, and there was a minor reduction of tax incidental to the said title trust.

Donation of title trust property under Article 45-2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

2015Nu6464 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing gift tax

IsaA

head of Sung Dong Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2015Guhap61726 decided October 23, 2015

July 8, 2016

August 12, 2016

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Claim: The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 1,244,935,850 (including additional tax) on September 4, 2014 against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal: Revocation of the judgment of the first instance. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

This judgment is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition of the following matters, and thus, it is based on Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

① Then, “If the Plaintiff had actively intended the result of the tax avoidance due to the instant title trust, it would be consistent with the fact that the instant title trust was made for a purpose other than that of the BB’s corporate investment (D-8) status acquisition, and thus, it would be consistent with the fact that the title trust was made for a purpose other than that of the BB’s corporate investment (D-8) status acquisition.”

② On the 7th page 13, the phrase “only KRW 14.9 million” is deemed to read “only KRW 20 million (the plaintiff shall be KRW 20,180,000, the defendant shall claim KRW 20,705,000).”

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.