As long as the title trust is recognized, the nominal owner shall prove that there has been another obvious purpose of tax avoidance.

The shares held in title trust under the name of the new Do could be avoided from applying progressive tax rates on dividend income, from the burden of secondary tax liability under the Framework Act on National Taxes, and from the burden of deemed acquisition tax under the Local Tax Act, and it could have avoided the application of the regulations on wrongful calculation. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that there exists a trust under the name of shares

Article 45-2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

2015Guhap83375 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

EAA

BB Director of the Tax Office

October 13, 2016

November 10, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant imposed a gift tax of KRW 64,695,130 (including penalty tax) on the Plaintiff on March 9, 2015.

The cancellation shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A.CC Media Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Non-Party Media”) is a company that runs a general book and textbook publishing business on January 15, 1990.

B. AD, who served as the representative director of the non-party company, transferred 60,000 shares of the non-party company held on November 15, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as "share shares"), to the officers and employees of the non-party company including the plaintiff, and completed the transfer of ownership.

C. The Defendant: (a) registered the Plaintiff’s shares in the non-party company’s name from EE, the actual owner of the non-party

For reasons of being consigned, applying Article 45-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8828, Dec. 31, 2007; hereinafter referred to as the "former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act"), the Plaintiff determined and notified the gift tax of KRW 64,695,130 (including additional tax) (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case").

D. On April 20, 2015, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and brought an appeal to the Tax Tribunal on April 20, 2015.

B. On August 12, 2015, a decision of dismissal was issued.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 11, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 11 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff received a title trust from the FF erosion case, which is not the EE individual, and the FF erosion case is exempt from taxation for profit-making business as a religious organization, so there is no room to acknowledge the purpose of tax avoidance. Furthermore, the FF erosion case is operated in the same way as Non-Party Company, including the Plaintiff, under title trust with the Non-Party Company, on the grounds of concerns that religious organizations may become shareholders of the non-Party Company that carries out profit-making business, concerns that Non-Party Company may suffer disadvantages if the Non-Party Company becomes a corporation run by the FF erosion case, and concerns that Non-Party Company may suffer disadvantages, and that Non-Party Company or its officers and employees may raise their self-esteem.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes shall be as follows.

C. Determination

1) The title truster of the issue shares

Although the Defendant asserts that the title truster of the shares at issue is EE, it is insufficient to acknowledge the aforementioned assertion solely on the basis of the statements in the Evidence Nos. 2 through 17, and 19 through 24. However, the Plaintiff is the title truster of the shares at issue, and the Defendant also adds the same content through a preparatory document dated September 27, 2016 to the same ground for disposition. Thus, if the foregoing ground for disposition is allowed, the instant disposition based on Article 45-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is lawful as long as it satisfies the requirements set forth in the following sub-paragraph (2).

Therefore, the subject matter of a taxation disposition lawsuit is objective existence of the tax amount determined by the tax authority. As such, the tax authority may submit new data that can support the legitimacy of the tax base or tax amount recognized in the relevant disposition, or exchange and change the reasons within the scope that maintains the identity of the disposition, and it does not necessarily mean that the tax authority can determine the legality of the disposition only by the data at the time of the disposition or only claim the reasons for the disposition at the time of the disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du1617, Jan. 27, 2011).

According to the background of the above disposition, the reason for the disposition added in ancillary to the original reason for the disposition in this case is only the legal evaluation as to whether the substantial ownership of the shares in question should be seen as EE or as to whether the ownership of the shares in question can be seen as the FF flooding circuit, and it does not change the basic facts that constitute the grounds for taxation. Thus, the Defendant’s addition of the grounds for the preliminary disposition constitutes an addition or modification of the grounds for disposition made within the scope where the identity of the disposition is maintained (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu3272, Feb. 11, 1997).

2) Whether there was no purpose of tax avoidance

As long as the fact of title trust is acknowledged, the claimant has the burden of proving that there was no purpose of tax avoidance. The nominal owner who bears the burden of proving the burden of proof was not related to the tax avoidance to the extent that there was no objective of tax avoidance in the title trust, and there was no tax avoidance in the future at the time of the title trust or in the future, the objective of proving that there was no tax avoidance in the title trust to the extent that the ordinary person is not doubtful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du17175, Sept. 8, 2011).

On the other hand, Article 3 (1) and (2) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8141 of Dec. 30, 2006) provides that a non-profit domestic corporation shall impose corporate tax on income earned from profit-making business. Each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 22 (including the serial number) is insufficient to recognize that there was a non-taxation practice for the non-profit domestic corporation to permanently exempt the above corporate tax, etc. from the above corporate tax on the religious organization. Rather, according to the evidence No. 18 of the non-party company's non-profit profit as of the end of 2003 business year, the non-party company or its affiliates (excluding some affiliated companies, which held stocks in the name of the FF flood erosion meeting) had all stocks issued by the non-party company or its affiliates, and thus, it can be said that the non-party company's non-party company's stocks were in a title trust state under the name of the new FFF erosion meeting, and thus, the issue of the FF0 tax rate under the Local Tax Act could be applied by concealing.

(B) According to the evidence No. 10, the Plaintiff’s assertion denying the application of Article 45-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act on the premise that the purpose of tax avoidance was not achieved.

3. Conclusion

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

shall be ruled.