Revocation of the imposition of gift tax on deemed donation of title trust.

It is merely merely a change in the method held by a transfer holder in the name of another person, but it is no longer the corporate tax, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff acquired the Plaintiff company’s treasury stocks in the name of the private shareholder of this case for the purpose of evading taxes.

Article 66 (2) of the Corporate Tax Act; and

Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act

1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

피고 ◯◯세무서장이 2004. 12. 10. 원고 ◯◯◯◯ 주식회사에 대하여 한 1,686,700,330원의 소득금액변동통지처분, 피고 ◯◯◯세무서장이 2004. 12. 29. 원고 방◯◯에 대하여 한 862,044,410원의 증여세 부과처분과 원고 ◯◯◯◯ 주식회사에 대하여 한 862,044,410원의 납부고지처분, 피고 ◯◯세무서장이 2005. 1. 2. 원고 백◯◯에 대하여 한 202,324,410원의 증여세 부과처분과 원고 ◯◯◯◯ 주식회사에 대하여한 202,324,410원의 납부고지처분, 피고 ◯◯세무서장이 2005. 1. 18. 원고 김◯◯에 대하여 한 1,006,134,520원의 증여세 부과처분과 원고 ◯◯◯◯ 주식회사에 대하여 한 1,006,134,520원의 납부고지처분, 피고 ◯◯세무서장이 2004. 12. 30. 원고 ◯◯◯◯ 주식회사에 대하여 한 1,985,279,990원의 증여세 납부고지처분을 모두 취소한다.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

1. 이 법원이 이 사건에 관하여 설시할 이유는, 제1심 판결문 제13면 20 내지 21행의 "주식의"부터 "소유자는"까지를 "그와 같은 경우 원고 회사에게는"으로 고쳐 쓰고, 제15면 7행 이하의 "(다)" 부분을 아래와 같이 고쳐 쓰는 외에는 제1심 판결 이유와 같으므로 행정소송법 제8조 제2항, 민사소송법 제420조에 의하여 이를 그대로 인용한다. "(다) 또한, 을 제13호증의 1, 2, 을 제23호증의 1의 각 기재에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 이◯◯이 1999. 11.경 방◯◯, 김◯◯과 원고 회사의 주가관리방안을 논의할 당시, 이미 원고 회사를 위하여 원고 회사 자사주를 보유하고 있던 기관들이 더 이상 명의대여를 하지 못하겠다는 의사를 표시할 뿐만 아니라, 위 기관들 명의 거래로 인하여 위 기관들에게 발생하는 법인세를 원고 회사가 보전하여야 하는 문제도 발생하게된 사실, 그리고 방◯◯ 등이 원고 회사 자사주를 개인명의 계좌에 보유하는 것이 주가관리를 위한 거래에 편리하다는 의사를 표시하기도 하자, 원고 회사는 앞에서 본 바와 같이 주식매매약정서를 작성한 후 이 사건 개인주주들 명의 계좌로 원고 회사 자사주를 이전, 보유하게 된 사실을 각 인정할 수 있는바, 위와 같은 경위에 비추어 보면 기관들 명의 계좌에서 이 사건 개인주주들 명의 계좌로 원고 회사 자사주를 옮겨 보유하게 된 것은 원고 회사 자사주를 타인 명의로 보유하는 방법을 변경한 것에 불과할 뿐이고 비록 그로 인하여 더 이상 기관들 명의 거래로 인한 법인세가 발생하지 않았다. 결국 원고 회사가 조세를 회피할 목적으로 이 사건 개인주주들 명의로 원고 회사 자사주를 취득하였다고 볼 수는 없다.

In addition, the above reasons are as follows: (a) since February 2000, the personal shareholders of the Plaintiff Company and the instant case were investigated into illegal acquisition of the Plaintiff Company’s own stocks and the Prosecution’s illegal acquisition of the Plaintiff Company’s own stocks from the Financial Supervisory Service and the instant personal shareholders who acquired the Plaintiff Company’s treasury stocks under the name of the instant personal shareholders; (b) since the instant personal shareholders were to resolve the legal issues arising from lending the Plaintiff Company’s name; and (c) due to the instant personal shareholders’ resolution of loans under the name of the Plaintiff Company, it would have been necessary for the instant personal shareholders to transfer their own stocks to the future prior to the conversion of the Plaintiff Company into the real name in the name of the Plaintiff Company; and (d) thereafter, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff Company had the purpose of evading taxes at the time of transferring the Plaintiff Company’s treasury stocks to the name of the instant personal shareholders.

Ultimately, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff Company had a purpose of evading taxes at the time of transfer of treasury stocks in the name of the private shareholder of this case and at the time of acquisition of the cause thereof, the disposition imposing the gift tax of this case is unlawful in this regard.

2. If so, the judgment of the first instance is just, and all appeals by the Defendants are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

[Seoul Administrative Court 2006Guhap2718 ( November 08, 2006)]

1. On December 10, 2004, the director of the tax office of ○○ Tax Office notified the change of the income amount of 1.686.70.330 won against the Plaintiff ○○○ Co., Ltd., and the director of the tax office of ○○ Tax Office notified the change of income amount of 1.686.70.30 won

The imposition of gift tax of KRW 862,044,410 on ○○○○, and the Plaintiff ○○○○ Incorporated Company

The imposition of gift tax of KRW 862,04,410 on January 2, 2005 and the imposition of KRW 202,324,410 on the Plaintiff ○○○○○○○ on January 2, 2005, and the imposition of gift tax of KRW 202,324,410 on the Plaintiff ○○○○○○○○ Incorporated Company; the imposition of gift tax of KRW 1,006,134,520 on January 18, 2005, and the imposition of gift tax of KRW 1,006,134,520 on the Plaintiff ○○○○ Incorporated Company; the imposition of gift tax of KRW 1,985,279,90 on December 30, 2004, and the imposition of gift tax of KRW 1,98,90 on the Plaintiff ○○○○ Incorporated Company.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The decision is as follows (the plaintiff stated on December 30, 2004 and the date of the disposition of imposition by the head of defendant ○○ Tax Office on January 20, 2005, but it is correct as it is obvious clerical error).

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Plaintiff ○○○○○○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) was established on October 13, 1970 and manufactures chemical products. As the stock value listed on August 11, 199 falls below 30,000 won, public offering was made, ○○○○○○○, the head of the management support team head, ○○○○○○○○○○○, and the head of the accounting department ○○○○○○○”) attended several meetings with the presence of ○○○○○○, the representative director of the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. for the purpose of maintaining the public offering at a certain level, ○○○○○○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff Co., Ltd.”). From August 20, 199 to November 8, 199, 30, 196 Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff Co., Ltd.), 400, Co., Ltd.’s deposit funds under the name of the Plaintiff Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., 600000 deposits after deposit funds.

B. The Defendant issued a notice of change in income amount and a disposition of imposing gift tax or a notice of payment of gift tax to the Plaintiffs as follows.

(1) The Plaintiff Company again borrowed the Plaintiff Company’s deposit from November 15, 1999 to February 17, 200, to have the Plaintiff ○○○○, ○○○, ○○○○○, ○○○○○○ (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”), ○○○, etc. (including the Plaintiff’s individual and the ○○○○, etc.) and the Plaintiff Company acquire 629,080 shares of the Plaintiff Company acquired by institutional investors outside of the scope of the Plaintiff Company from November 15, 199 to February 17, 200.

In the chapter, 163,670 shares of the Plaintiff Company acquired shares of the Plaintiff Company on a total of 792,750 shares.

(2) By February 17, 2000, the Plaintiff Company sold 300,030 shares out of the Plaintiff Company’s own shares (hereinafter “Disposition Shares”) and transferred 362,210 shares out of the remaining 492,720 shares (hereinafter “UnDisposition Shares”) under the name of the instant individual shareholders. On November 9, 2001, the Plaintiff Company converted the full amount of 362,210 shares and 130,510 shares out of the remaining shares and 130,510 shares under the name of the Plaintiff Company.

(3) On November 9, 2001, the Plaintiff Company cancelled the Plaintiff’s deposit, which was offered as security, and repaid the amount equivalent to the same amount. The Plaintiff Company: (a) included the total amount of KRW 17,795,42,316 assessed by the Defendants as the outflow from the company in the process of acquiring and transferring the Plaintiff Company’s own shares, such as the acquisition value of the instant non-sale shares and the sales profit of the instant disposed shares; and (b) the total amount of KRW 2,986,70,336 assessed by the Defendants as the outflow from the company; and (c) included the amount of KRW 195,608,492 assessed as the outflow from the company in the asset account as the

(4) After investigating the change of shares in the business year 2000, the head of the regional tax office of the Plaintiff Company: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff Company acquired its own shares in the name of another person and disposed of them, and converted the remaining real names; (b) included the amount of profit or loss related to the acquisition and disposal of the Plaintiff Company’s own shares in the gross income and deductible expenses for each business year including the date of occurrence of the profit or loss related to the acquisition and disposal of the Plaintiff Company’s own shares in the gross income and deductible expenses; (c) adjusted the other matters on December 10, 2004, for which the attribution is unclear; and (d) made a notification of the change of the income amount (33,587,650, 200, 1,353, 112,680, 2000, 2000, 360, 360, 194, 2005, 196, 2005, 3694, 2000

(5) The head of the regional tax office: (a) held 3 months or longer, the filing period of gift tax on the Plaintiff Company’s shareholder registry; (b) deemed that the shares listed on the Plaintiff Company’s shareholder registry as of January 31, 200 were trusted for the purpose of tax avoidance; (c) notified that the individual shareholders calculated and imposed gift tax pursuant to the provisions of Article 41-2 (amended by Act No. 6780, Dec. 18, 2002; hereinafter the same) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (No. 23,671 won per each of the instant shares; and (d) Defendant 2, the head of the regional tax office assessed the Plaintiff Company’s capacity to pay the gift tax on the Plaintiff Company’s 1 to 300,671 won per each of the instant shares; and (e) Defendant 2, the head of the regional tax office had no capacity to pay the gift tax on the Plaintiff Company’s 1 to 00,064,410

2. Whether a lawsuit seeking the revocation of notice of change in the amount of income is legitimate;

Although the defendant asserts that the notice of change in the amount of income does not constitute an administrative disposition that is the object of an appeal litigation, if the customs office's disposition of income and the notice of change in the amount of income accordingly are issued, the person responsible for collecting withholding taxes shall be deemed to have paid the amount to the person to whom the income recorded in the notice is attributed on the day when the notice of change in the amount of income is received, and at the same time the liability to pay the income tax withheld therefrom is established, and the person responsible for collecting withholding taxes bears the obligation to pay the amount of withholding tax according to the details of disposition of income recorded in the notice of change in the amount of income. If the person liable for collecting withholding taxes fails to pay the amount of withholding taxes to the head of the competent tax office by the 10th day of the following month, it is reasonable to deem that the notice of change in the amount of income is an administrative disposition directly affecting the corporate tax liability, which is the person responsible for collecting withholding taxes, which is the object of an appeal litigation (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2002Du187

3. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

(1) Although the representative director instructed ○○○○○ to dispose of the instant shares to the principal seller, ○○○○ was entrusted with the operating force and converted it into the name of the instant individual shareholders, and thereafter, ○○○○ made profits from the disposal of treasury shares through the unlawful price manipulation. The Plaintiff Company did not participate in the process of acquiring profits through such manipulation. Therefore, its profits are not attributed to the Plaintiff Company, but belong to the Plaintiff Company, and even if the Plaintiff Company did not recognize the identity theft of treasury shares by ○○○, and even if it was made by the Plaintiff Company without recognizing the identity theft of treasury shares by ○○○○, the Plaintiff Company’s act of acquiring treasury shares that lack the requirements for acquiring treasury shares under the Securities and Exchange Act, and all of the treasury shares transactions are deemed null and void, and thus, the Plaintiff Company was not lawfully acquired the ownership of treasury shares. Therefore, the instant notice of change in income amount is unlawful.

(2) On the contrary, the name trading of the instant individual shareholders is merely made by ○○○, an employee of the Plaintiff Company, by stealing the name of the Plaintiff Company, and even though there was no agreement between the Plaintiff Company and the instant individual shareholders to trust the Plaintiff Company’s treasury stocks, the Defendant imposed gift tax on the instant individual shareholders, deeming that the Plaintiff Company held the Plaintiff Company’s treasury stocks under a title trust with the instant individual shareholders, and thus, the Defendant’s disposition imposing gift tax on the instant individual shareholders was unlawful on the premise of erroneous facts, and thus, it is unlawful, as the name trading between the Plaintiff Company and the instant individual shareholders is null and void in violation of the provisions related to the acquisition of treasury stocks under the Securities and Exchange Act, and thus, it cannot be imposed gift tax by applying the deemed donation provision under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and furthermore, it is unlawful to impose gift tax on the Plaintiff Company

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) From the end of October 1999, ○○○○ had only been equipped with an operational expert’s location at the Plaintiff’s head office with ○○○○○○○. At the time of managing ○○○○○, etc. the share price of the Plaintiff’s shares, which was named as the name of an organization, such as O-type gold, was higher than the appropriate level until December 200, requesting the Plaintiff to dispose of the shares of the Plaintiff.

(2) On November 9, 1999, ○○○○ and others discussed a plan for share price management; ① increase of capital and share price management in the future through securing excellent shareholders; ② share price management through share distribution; ③ use of market price following O incident; ④ share price management at least 35,000 won; ⑤ sale of future treasury shares (120,000 shares) and 50,000 shares in excess of 50,000 shares through over-the-counter trading; (30,500 won per share (including loans entered to purchase shares at purchase price of shares; and (4) purchase shares at 35,000-45,00 won per share price; and (3) purchase at least 1 military financial institutions by installments into safety devices; and (4) purchase at least 35,000-7,000 won per share price; and (5) purchase at least 10,000 won per share price per share price and sale at least 50,000 shares per share price per share.

(3) After internal resolution on November 1, 1999, the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ KRW 30,50 per share the unit price of the shares transferred from ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ KRW KRW 2200.”).

(4) Pursuant to a share purchase agreement, ○○○○ had been introduced from high school dong or friendlyO to trade the Plaintiff’s shares to the instant individual shareholders, and had borrowed the name from the instant individual shareholders by requesting the lending of the borrowed name account in order to trade the Plaintiff’s shares. From November 1, 1999, 5 of the instant individual shareholders opened a securities consignment account in the name of the listed stock company, etc., ○○○ opened the securities consignment account in five securities companies, including the listed stock company, etc. from November 15, 199, with the instant individual shareholders as the debtor, from November 15, 199 to borrow the funds from the instant individual shareholders as the debtor, 50,000 shares owned by the institution outside of the name of the instant individual shareholders.

(5) From November 26, 1999 to February 17, 200, 00, ○○○, etc. issued an order to purchase the Plaintiff’s company’s own stocks of KRW 150,450 on a total of 52 occasions, and prevented the increase of the share price or below KRW 30,000 on a total of 23 occasions by issuing an order to purchase the Plaintiff’s own stocks of KRW 53,040 at a price similar to the immediately preceding one, and sold KRW 116,645,723,350 (average unit price for sale) of the Plaintiff’s company’s own stocks to the institution via a borrowed account of the instant individual stockholders. Of the amount transferred to the Plaintiff company, KRW 30,50 per share of KRW 30,50 per share of KRW 30,80 per share, and thereafter, the remaining amount of the Plaintiff’s company’s treasury shares of KRW 29,000 per share should be adjusted to KRW 2636,6365,6000

(6) While ○○○○, etc. manages the share price at KRW 40,000 per share, the Plaintiff Company’s shares were flowing in large volume and failed to manage the share price, and upon being investigated by the Financial Supervisory Service on the stock price manipulation, the share purchase and sale agreement between ○○, ○○, and ○○○ was de facto reversed.

(7) From September 2, 1999 to November 8, 1999, the Plaintiff Company sold 8,000 shares and 300,030 shares, including 292,030 shares, within the heading through the operating force from November 15, 1999 to February 17, 200. The remainder 492,720 shares were used in the Plaintiff’s account under the Plaintiff’s name of ○○○○○; 70 shares were 70,980 shares; 92,80 shares in the Plaintiff’s account under the Plaintiff’s name of ○○○○○○○; 89,930 shares in the Plaintiff’s name of ○○○○○○ account; 158,680 shares in the account under the Plaintiff’s name of ○○○ Investment Company; and 8,330 shares in the name of the Plaintiff Company directly sold within the heading.

(8) From February 2, 2000 to July 2000, the Financial Supervisory Service conducted an investigation into the Plaintiff Company and accused the Plaintiff Company of the consultation on stock manipulation, such as ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, and ○○○○. The Prosecutor was indicted after investigating the Plaintiff Company from August 200 to March 2001.

(9) On December 31, 200, the Plaintiff Company entered 412,390 shares in the Plaintiff’s account in the Plaintiff’s name and ○○○○○○, 92,800 shares in the Plaintiff’s name; 81,930 shares in the Plaintiff’s name; 81,930 shares in the Plaintiff’s name; 158,680 shares in the Plaintiff’s name; 362,210 shares and the remaining 130,720 shares in the Plaintiff’s name; and 492,720 shares in the Plaintiff’s name on November 13, 201.

(10) The Plaintiff Company agreed to pay back loans borrowed in the name of the instant individual shareholder to the instant individual shareholder and compensate the Plaintiff Company for damages incurred in connection with the borrowed name transaction. The instant individual shareholder agreed to hand over the Plaintiff Company’s own will to the Plaintiff Company, which the Plaintiff Company was responsible for and closed the old accounts established in the financial institution and securities company under the name of the instant individual shareholder.

[Based on the recognition] Evidence Nos. 8, 9, 8-1, 2-1, 9-5, 10-1, 11-3, 12-1, 13-2, 14-1, 2, 15-1, 16-3, 17-1, 21-1, 22-1, 22-1, 23-1, 23-1, 11-2 of the evidence Nos. 1, 23-1, 115, 17-1, 17-2 of the evidence Nos. 16-1, 17, 17-1, 17-2 of the evidence No.

D. Determination

(1) Whether the instant disposition of notifying the change of income amount was legitimate

The disposal of income under the Corporate Tax Act means confirming the fact that the pertinent taxpayer has already reverted to income or its equivalent interest. According to the above facts, 8,000 treasury stocks sold by the Plaintiff company directly within the head of the tax office did not accrue, and 292,030 treasury stocks sold by the Plaintiff company within the head of the tax office through the operation force were deposited in the Plaintiff company by ○○○ and ○○○○○, etc., including expenses incurred in purchasing the Plaintiff company’s stocks, and the remaining sales profits agreed that 30,500 won per share including expenses incurred in purchasing the Plaintiff company’s stocks in accordance with an agreement between ○○ and ○○○, etc., and thus, ○○○, etc. did not have any room to belong to the Plaintiff company. As such, the Defendant’s notice of changes in the amount of treasury stocks included in the sales profit of this case was unlawful.

(2) Whether the disposition imposing gift tax of this case is legitimate

(A) According to the above facts, ○○○○○○, etc. discussed the method of raising the shares, and approved the proposal for selling the borrowed shares prepared by ○○○○○○○, and the Plaintiff Company provided deposits as collateral when purchasing the company’s shares under the name of the personal shareholders of this case according to the above sale proposal. As such, it should be deemed that ○○○○○, upon the order of ○○○○○○○○○○○’s representative director, purchased the shares under the name of the personal shareholders of this case. If ○○○○ was not aware of the method of selling the borrowed shares, even if ○○○○○ was in a specific manner, it should be deemed that ○○○○○○, who was ordered by ○○○○○○○○, actually purchased the shares under the name of the personal shareholders of this case. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ primary assertion that there was no agreement on the title trust between the Plaintiff Company and the instant personal shareholders is rejected.

(B) In addition, the Plaintiff Company managed cards, seals, and passwords related to the securities deposit account in the name of the instant individual shareholders as a safety device for treasury stocks transaction by the operating force. However, the Plaintiff Company: (a) paid 30,500 won per share to the Plaintiff Company pursuant to the share transaction agreement with ○○○○○○ and ○○○○○; (b) in fact, the disposal right and sales gains belong to ○○○○○, etc.; and (c) accordingly, the instant individual shareholders’ treasury stocks were transferred to ○○, etc.; (b) accordingly, at the time of the stock price manipulation by the operating force, the actual owner of the instant individual shareholders’ treasury stocks cannot be deemed the Plaintiff Company at the time of the stock price manipulation. However, once ○○○, etc. failed to dispose of the Plaintiff Company due to the de facto reversal of the share transaction agreement concluded with ○○○ and ○○○○, etc., due to the fact that the Plaintiff Company did not actually belong to the Plaintiff Company until then.

However, in addition to cases where the acquisition of treasury stocks is expressly permitted in Articles 341, 341-2, and 342-2 of the Commercial Act, or in the Securities and Exchange Act, where the company acquires treasury stocks without compensation, or where it is not possible to endanger the foundation of the company or harm the interests of stockholders, etc. on another person’s account, the acquisition of treasury stocks is exceptionally allowed, but in other cases, even if there are inevitable circumstances to avoid serious losses that may arise to the company, shareholders, or creditors, etc., the acquisition of treasury stocks is naturally null and void (see Supreme Court Decisions 96Da12726, Jun. 25, 1996; 2004Da4109, May 16, 2003). Since the acquisition of treasury stocks by the Plaintiff company is in violation of the regulations on the restriction on acquisition of treasury stocks, the Plaintiff company cannot be deemed null and void since it constitutes an exceptional case where the Plaintiff company cannot be deemed as acquiring treasury stocks under the name of 13rd party (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da1485, supra).

Therefore, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff Company’s acquisition of its own shares by acquiring its own shares through a personal borrowed-name transaction in violation of the regulations on the restriction on the acquisition of treasury shares, and that the Defendant’s disposal of its own shares is null and void due to the Defendant’s imposition of gift tax, in violation of the principle of good faith and the principle of good-faith, and thus, it cannot be permitted. However, the instant individual shareholders merely lend their names to the Plaintiff Company, did not participate in the process of acquiring and transferring its own shares, did not take profits in the process, and there was no means for the tax authorities to assert that they are the actual owner of the Plaintiff Company’s treasury shares. If the title trust is recognized, the title trust under the provisions on the restriction on the acquisition of treasury shares is deemed to be a gift, and it is difficult to deem that the title trustee who was not actually donated violated the trust of the tax authorities on the ground that the act of acquiring the Plaintiff Company’s treasury shares was null and void, because the Plaintiffs asserted that the act of acquiring treasury shares is null and void merely because they asserted legal effect.

In addition, the defendant asserts that in the case of acquiring treasury shares, if the acquisition of treasury shares is null and void in violation of the regulations on the restriction on acquisition of treasury shares, if there exists a substance that should be taxed as a matter of course on the acquisition of treasury shares to a third party, it should be imposed on such profits. However, in the case of gift tax imposed pursuant to the provisions on deemed donation, it is not possible to determine whether to impose gift tax ex post depending on whether the requirements for taxation of gift tax should be established at the time of transfer, and whether there exists a substance that should be disposed of and taxed after the stocks to a third party. If there exists a substance that should be taxed as a result of transfer to a third party, there is no need to impose gift tax pursuant to the provisions on deemed donation because the individual shareholders of this case can newly impose tax on the third party. As seen above, there is no substance that should be taxed because the individual shareholders of this case dispose of treasury shares

(C) In addition, as the Plaintiff Company’s stock price decline after listing, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff Company traded the Plaintiff Company’s treasury stocks under the name of an institution for the purpose of maintaining the level of the stock price. The Plaintiff Company requested the Plaintiff Company to open an account for securities in its name. According to the Plaintiff Company’s stock transaction agreement with ○○○○, etc., the Plaintiff Company did not have the right to dispose of shares under the name of the instant individual shareholders, and all of the profits from disposal of shares were to be acquired by ○○, etc., so it was difficult for the Plaintiff Company to expect the profits from the sale of shares at the time of acquiring the shares under the name of the instant individual shareholders. Therefore, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff Company traded the Plaintiff Company’s treasury stocks under the name of the Plaintiff Company with the non-taxable personal name in order to avoid the burden of corporate tax when it trades the Plaintiff Company under the name of the Plaintiff Company, and thus, the Plaintiff Company and the instant individual shareholders were subject to the investigation of unlawful acquisition and share price adjustment in the name of the Plaintiff Company and the instant transfer name.

(3) On the premise that a legitimate disposition imposing gift tax is taken, the Defendant’s disposition of notifying the payment of gift tax in this case to pay gift tax jointly with the individual shareholders of this case is also unlawful.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the Defendants’ instant disposition of notification of income amount, imposition of gift tax, and payment of gift tax are illegal. Thus, the Plaintiffs’ claims seeking revocation are accepted on the grounds of all of the grounds.