Daejeon District Court 2009Guhap3165 ( October 12, 2010)

early 2009.020 ( October 28, 2009)

Disposition on which gift tax is levied on the premise of a high-priced stock transaction is illegal.

The Plaintiff merely lent the name of a party to a sale and purchase transaction of shares, but only lent the name of the party to the sale and purchase transaction, and the imposition of gift tax on the premise that the actual party is the Plaintiff is unlawful. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the party to the sale and purchase contract was not the Plaintiff in a

2010Nu1093 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

IsaA

○ Head of tax office

Daejeon District Court Decision 2009Guhap3165 Decided May 12, 2010

April 14, 2011

May 12, 201

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

3. Of the disposition of the first instance court, " September 30, 2008" in paragraph 1 of the same Article shall be corrected to " September 5, 2008".

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 1,79,88,520 on the gift of April 13, 2005 against the Plaintiff on September 5, 2008 is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's reasoning concerning this case is as follows. The defendant added the following judgments as to new arguments in the court of first instance. On September 30, 2008, 2008, 2004, 31 December 28, 2004, 6, 7, 2008, 7, 2008, 420, 420 of the first instance court's decision. Thus, the court's reasoning is as stated in the first instance court's decision, except as otherwise stated in Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The defendant's assertion

At the time of tax investigation, the Plaintiff asserted that he was a party to each of the instant sales contracts, and did not deny it even at the time of filing a tax appeal. The Plaintiff changed his own attitude in the instant lawsuit and asserted that he was not a party to each of the instant sales contracts.

On the other hand, the tax authority was unable to secure a tax claim on the so-called so-called so-called Park Young-young that the plaintiff could not believe the above assertion of the plaintiff, although the tax authority had a strong doubt about whether the plaintiff was a party to the transaction as a result of tracking the flow of funds at the time of the tax investigation.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above attitude interferes with the authority of the tax authorities to conduct a field investigation. Unlike the words and actions of the Plaintiff at the time of the tax investigation in the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff’s assertion that it is not a party to each of the instant sales contracts is unfair.

B. Determination

The principle of legality under the no taxation without representation shall be applied only when it is deemed necessary to protect specific trust even if the person liable for tax payment has made a sacrifice of the legality. In particular, when the person liable for tax payment commits an act contrary to his past speech and behavior, it shall be subject to a disadvantageous disposition, such as deprivation of benefits, such as tax reduction and exemption under tax law, various additional taxes, penalty under tax law, etc., and the tax authority shall have the authority to conduct on-site investigations as a superior position to the taxpayer, and the burden of proving the legality of the tax disposition is against the tax authority in principle, the application of the principle of good faith to the taxpayer shall be extremely limited, and shall not be expanded and interpreted. To apply the principle of good faith to the taxpayer, the behavior is objectively contradictory, and the taxpayer’s trust should be protected by the tax authority (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Du2686, Nov. 26, 199; 2007Du36082, Jul. 26, 2006).

In light of the above legal principles, it is difficult to see that the Plaintiff’s tax investigation conducted a tax investigation as a party to each of the instant sales contracts, but the Plaintiff’s own attitude was changed in the instant lawsuit, and the Plaintiff’s assertion that it is not a party to each of the instant sales contracts is against the principle of trust and good faith. Thus, we find

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is obvious that it is a clerical error in September 5, 2008 in the disposition of the court of first instance as of September 30, 2008. It is so decided as per Disposition.