1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. Gift tax imposed on the Plaintiff on November 1, 2012 by the director of the East capital Tax Office 178,425.

"1. Reasons for the disposition" in the reasoning of the judgment of this court which partially accepted the judgment of the first instance;

2. Grounds for appeal and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion;

(b)The part of the judgment of the first instance, except that the pertinent matter in question is advanced as follows, is identical to the reasons for the judgment of the first instance (including 2.12 to 6.3 degrees), and thus, in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, the “27.8%” of the 4.4 pages shall be deemed to be “23.89%.” The “designated Notice” of the 11st sentence shall be deemed to be “designated Notice and Notice of Tax Payment” of the 4.4th sentence shall be deemed to be “designated Notice and Notice of Tax Payment.”

(g) 【The Plaintiff and the instant trustee paid deemed acquisition tax accordingly by taking the form of a share sales contract with respect to the instant shares, as follows. The number of shares to be returned to the Plaintiff on December 13, 201, G 260,215 F. F. 284,043 E on June 1, 2009, June 242, 2009, D D 156,161 C on June 156, 2009, Nov. 156, 2009, 161, as the ground for recognition of “The number of shares to be returned to the date of sale by a nominal trustee is added to the number of shares to be returned to the Plaintiff.”

5. From 20 to 6.1 p.m. shall be deleted.

The legislative purport of Article 45-2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is to effectively prevent the act of tax avoidance using the title trust system, thereby realizing the tax justice. As such, the proviso to Article 45-2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is applicable only where the purpose of tax avoidance is not included in the purpose of title trust. In this case, the burden of proving that there was no purpose of tax avoidance exists the person who asserts it.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Du13649, Dec. 23, 2004). Therefore, the fact that there was no purpose of tax avoidance is proven that there was another purpose, not the purpose of tax avoidance.