Seocho 2012west 2246 ( October 27, 2012)

It is difficult to deem that there was a tax avoidance purpose at the time of title trust.

It is difficult to deem that there was a purpose of tax avoidance at the time of title trust because securities transaction tax, which was exempted from the liability to pay with no dividend income under global income tax to be avoided at the time of stock title trust, was merely a minor reduction of tax as incidental to stock title trust.

2012Guhap3096 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

United StatesA

head of Dongjak-gu Tax Office

February 13, 2013

March 8, 2013

1. The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 00 on the Plaintiff, and KRW 000 on the gift tax of February 6, 2012, and penalty tax of KRW 00 on December 1, 2012 shall be revoked.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. This BB (former name: B. B. hereinafter referred to as “B”) is an external grandchild of DoD, who is the honorary chairperson of CC Group. The BB participated in the third party allocation method of International EE Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “E”), which is a KOSDAQ-listed corporation on February 27, 2008, in the capital increase for new shares, and acquired 500,000 shares (hereinafter referred to as “instant shares”) in the name of the Plaintiff in the aggregate of 000 won per share issuance price of 200 won per share. The Plaintiff is a driver of NAB mother (parent).

B. On February 6, 2012, the Defendant imposed and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 89,00,00, and KRW 53,711,50, and KRW 500 on the ground that “the instant shares are deemed to have been donated from thisB”.

C. The Plaintiff filed an appeal on April 24, 2012, and received a decision of dismissal from the Tax Tribunal on June 26, 2012.

D. On December 1, 2012, the Defendant revoked ex officio the imposition of penalty tax on gift tax, and notified the Plaintiff of the imposition of penalty tax on the amount of penalty tax on the same day (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant disposition”).

2. Whether the disposition of this case is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) This BB’s acquisition of the shares of the KoreaGGG Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “GGG”) was based on the false novels, the old novels, and the Financial Supervisory Service’s investigation into this BB, GG, andCC Group, and thisB’s disclosure led to the Plaintiff’s title trust in order to prevent the same disadvantage due to the disclosure of investment facts, and there was no tax evaded or to be avoided by the title trust, and thus, the instant disposition was unlawful.

(2) The imposition of penalty tax without notifying the type of penalty tax and the grounds for calculation thereof is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) On July 13, 2007, GG publicly announced on the electronic system of the Financial Supervisory Service that “The 184,839 shares per ordinary share to this BB, and that “The 186,706 shares per ordinary share to the head and south of H, the president of the bbb Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., will issue capital increase to the third party.”

(2) On July 12, 2007 and the 13th day of the same month, the share price of the GG increased, and the KOSDAQ headquarters demanded a public announcement of inquiry into specific grounds that may affect the share price of the GG.

(3) On July 18, 2007, the Internet newspaper, which was the Internet newspaper, published the following contents in JJ economy:

(Omission of Contents)

(4) KK’s bypass listing theory was conducted by this B, GG, andCC Group by the Financial Supervisory Service. The B took due care that, at the time, “CC Group had been in prudent behavior so as not to be unnecessary.”

(5) This B sold at the Korea Exchange on March 20, 2008 the EE stocks 2,481 shares in the Plaintiff’s name (the total holding shares 502,481 shares + 500,000 + 2,481 shares, and 3.86% shares), and 400,89 shares in the total shares on the same day, and 101,582 shares in the remaining shares on the 21st of the same month, respectively. The Plaintiff bears 00 won in the securities transaction tax as a result of the sale on March 20, 2008 and 000 won in the securities transaction tax as a result of the sale on the 21st of the same month.

(6) On August 8, 2008, this B was authorized by the Seoul Western District Court to open name from “B” to “B”.

(7) Matters pertaining to EE’s dividends in the business year of 2006 to 2011 are listed in the following table:

(The following table omitted):

(8) This B does not have any income other than the earned income before and after the title trust of the instant shares.

[Reasons for Recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence 4 to 13 (including natural disaster) and Eul evidence 7 and 8, the witness's second evidence, and L's testimony, and the purpose of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) Since the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 916, Jan. 1, 201; hereinafter referred to as the "former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act") provides that no more than 20 percent of the shares were subject to taxation before and after the date of this case’s transfer income tax and no more than 20 percent of the shares were subject to taxation, and that no more than 20 percent of the shares were subject to taxation before and after the date of this case’s transfer income tax (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 204Du733, May 12, 2006).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition.