It is reasonable to view that it was impliedly agreed on the use of the securities account at the time of delivery.

It is insufficient to recognize that a securities account was opened and delivered with a securities account and a copy of identification card issued thereafter by stealing the name. Since it is reasonable to deem that an implied agreement was made on the use of the account at the time of delivery of the securities account, the title trust relationship is established.

2013Guhap52124 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing gift tax

KimA

Samsung Head of Samsung Tax Office

October 2, 2013

October 11, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

In February 13, 2012, the Defendant revoked the imposition of OOO(including additional tax) on the Plaintiff on the gift tax.

1. Details of the instant disposition

(a) Disposition, etc.;

(1) From September 29, 201 to November 29, 2011, the Director of the Central Regional Tax Office: (1) conducted an investigation on the change of stocks (business year subject to investigation: 2007; 2008; hereinafter referred to as “B”); (2) around December 13, 201, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the taxation data under suspicion of title trust of 50,000 shares issued to BB by a third party (hereinafter referred to as “instant shares”); and (2) on February 13, 2012, the Defendant issued a notice of the gift tax amount to the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “O’s gift tax”) to include the KRW 27,00,000 (hereinafter referred to as “O’s gift tax”).

(1) The Plaintiff filed an appeal on May 8, 2012. On October 30, 2012, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to re-examine whether the FF is the actual title truster and to make a disposition according to its results.

(2) Accordingly, the Defendant conducted a tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiff from November 26, 2012 to December 25, 2012, and notified the Plaintiff that the instant disposition should be maintained on January 3, 2013, on the grounds that the illegality of the instant disposition cannot be verified.

Facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In light of the following: “EE” means that the Plaintiff’s securities account (hereinafter referred to as the “securities account”) is opened and issued to the Plaintiff; the Plaintiff opened a securities account without any choice as a new member of GG Steel Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “GG”); the Plaintiff received prior explanation about BB’s capital increase from KimE; there is no prior consent to the use of the securities accounting; and KimE and BaF used the securities accounting by forging the subscription form for capital increase; and KimE and BaF’s capital use of the securities account constitutes a fraudulent name; thus, the use of the securities account in the name of the Plaintiff constitutes a fraudulent name; thus, the instant disposition is unlawful; and (b) relevant laws and regulations.

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) Paid-in capital increase

(A) BB, which was a third party on February 27, 2008, had been proved by the Plaintiff, etc. as follows.

See Table 3

(B) Upon the request of KimE on March 21, 2008, the Plaintiff deposited the sales price of the instant shares from the securities account with leH as a check and delivered it to KimE.

(2) Statement of KimE, BaF, etc.

(A) A statement of Kim E-E

On December 8, 2011, KimE prepared and submitted the following statements to the Central and Medium Local Offices:

- At the time, the Chairman of the FF and Kim II were aware to have participated in the increase of the capital after discussions about acceptance, etc., and the Chairman of the FF is not a person to be used in the name of the nominal owner. I ask at the time, I lent the name of the Plaintiff who had worked in GG at the time. I transferred the shares account to the Plaintiff.

- At the time, PH participated in the capital increase after borrowing a nominal account from the Plaintiff, and then deposited the funds with a check, etc., and then withdrawn a check after selling stocks, and put it to the Chairman of the FF.

- At the time, trading was directly made by the FF Chairperson to have employees, etc.

(B) Statement of the Central Regional Tax Office of the FF on December 14, 2011

- On February 27, 2008, the apJ, UnitedK, Kim LL, and the Plaintiff lent funds to the Plaintiff participating in the capital increase with BB’s capital increase. On February 2008, 2008, the MMM partner office located in Newdong, Seoul and lent the amount of OO by withdrawing it as a check from the MM partner office.

-J has been lent since it was known to the general public, and it has been requested to lend it and lent it to the Plaintiff as well as the Plaintiff, who is well aware and KimE.

- The LJ has drawn up a loan certificate, collected money, and returned the loan certificate. In addition, this NN received a certificate of loan from the name of UK in the MM office, received a return of money, and kept the copy as it was. The KimE lent the previous business relationship without drawing up a loan certificate.

- The repayment date was one month from the date of the lending, and the interest rate was 6% per annum, and the existing business relationship with leH, EN, and KimE, a partner of MM, had been lent without collateral.

- The money lent to HaJ was repaid through HaJ, and the money lent to N was not paid through MaM office leH H H representative, or paid directly to N, but the money lent to MaE is directly repaid from MaE.

(C) Statement of investigation by the Central Regional Tax Office of J on November 30, 2011

- The FF's solicitation that he/she became aware of in the course of the introduction of HaH was involved in the issue of capital increase.

- The amount of the share capital paid was lent to OOOO in the FF’s office. At the same leH’s office, the FF was received from OOO in a number of checks, and the payment of the share capital was made through leH, which is the birth.

- prepare a loan certificate at the time of borrowing money to the FF.

- After the enhancement of BB’s shares, he paid the whole amount of the Doh’s shares to DohF and recovered the loan. He did not directly pay Doh’s loan to Doh, who was the birth of Doh, and Doh repaid Doh’s loan to Doh, and collected Doh’s loan.

Facts that there is no dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 6, Eul evidence 2 and 3 (including paper numbers), and the fact-finding results of this court's inquiry about DD Co., Ltd., the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) Article 45-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11130, Dec. 31, 201) provides that “The provision on deemed donation of securities shall not apply where the actual owner and the nominal owner register in the future by entering into an agreement or communication with the nominal owner when the transfer or exercise of the right is required. In this case, the tax authority can only prove that the actual owner is different from the nominal owner, and the burden of proving that the registration, etc. of the nominal owner was made by the unilateral act of the actual owner regardless of the intent of the nominal owner should be determined by the nominal owner (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du15780, Feb. 14, 2008). Meanwhile, the title trust relationship between the Plaintiff and the nominal owner of the shares was not established by the explicit agreement between the truster and the trustee, and the Plaintiff may also be established by the implied agreement on the sale of the shares issued to the PE, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da401).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.