Cho High-2016-west-185 ( October 28, 2016)

Whether the shares held in title trust by the decedent are included in the inherited property;

Property which is registered in the name of the predecessor after being entrusted by the predecessor may not be included in the value of the inherited property.

Article 1 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

Seoul Administrative Court-2017-Gu Partnership-52467

○○ and 3 others

○ Head of tax office

August 24, 2017

September 14, 2017

1. On October 7, 2015, the Defendant’s imposition of inheritance tax (including additional tax) of KRW 1,498,99,430 on January 7, 2014 against the Plaintiffs in excess of KRW 144,961,050 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. The Plaintiffs reported and paid KRW 2,670,000 of inheritance tax on July 31, 2014, when the Deceased died on January 11, 2014, the Plaintiffs reported and paid the inheritance tax amount of KRW 1,251,071,719.

B. The defendant conducted an inheritance tax survey on the plaintiffs and conducted an inheritance tax survey on the savings bank in △△, Inc.

(hereinafter) On October 12, 2015, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Savings Bank (hereinafter referred to as "Seoul Special Metropolitan City Savings Bank") designated the heir as a joint and several taxpayer on the ground that the owner is 86,408 shares (hereinafter referred to as "share shares") in the list of changes in stocks, etc., including 3,058,583,970 shares at issue, etc., and designated the heir as a joint and several obligor on the ground that the heir was a joint and several obligor on the ground that he/she was the owner of 86,408 shares in the list of changes in stocks (hereinafter referred to as "share shares").

C. The Plaintiffs appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on December 23, 2015, but was dismissed on October 28, 2016.

D. Inheritance tax (including additional tax) related to the shares at issue among the instant disposition is KRW 1,354,038,380.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, 4, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The issue shares is that the deceased received a title trust from Kim △△△△, and are not inherited property.

(b) Fact of recognition;

1) The deceased is the head of the △△ Group, the spouse of the △△ Kim Kim, the spouse of the △△ Group, and Kim △△△.

is the subject of this Act.

2) The Kim △△△△ was a tax official, around March 2015, and around March 2015, the list of shares acquired in the name of the deceased.

Around May 15, 2015, he/she submitted a written statement to the effect that he/she is the actual owner of the shares at issue, and that he/she acquired the shares issued by the savings bank of Do in Do in Do in the name of the Do in the name of the head of the Do in Do in the name of the head of the Do in Seoul Special Metropolitan City on May 15, 2015, but he/she did not possess financial evidence at the time of acquisition for more

3) On November 1, 1972, 50,000 capital stock of 50,000,000 shares issued, and on December 31, 1978, the total number of shares issued was increased to 1,00,000 shares. At the time of the above capital increase, 8,200 shares and 3,00 shares were allocated to Kim-A and KimB to South-dong Kim-dong Kim-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong (hereinafter “Seoul-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong KimD and KimF, each of 3,00 shares were allocated to 3,00 shares issued, each of which was allocated to 30,800 shares issued in the name of the deceased. In this case, new shares allocated first.

4) The share certificates, subscription forms for shares (1983), and subscription certificates for shares (191 and 1992) of the shares at issue are the shares of △△△△△.

The group held KimE, who only manages the property of the group's lineal and lineal family members, but KimE appeared as a witness in this Court and testified that the owner of the outstanding shares was Kim △△ at the time when the former trustee was transferred his business from OA to the former trustee.

5) The foregoing subscription form for shares and a certificate of receipt of share certificates are different in both the writing of signature in the deceased’s name.

6) On July 9, 2015, Kim △△△△ completed the transfer of title to the shares at issue.

7) From 192 to 1998, the Deceased received wage and salary income from AA, 2001, from 1992 to 200, from △△ Securities Co., Ltd., △△, △△△, △△△, △△, and △△ Securities Co., Ltd., Ltd., and from 2005 to 2006, △△△△△, Inc.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 5 to 13, Eul evidence 3 and 4, witness Kim E's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

1) Whether it constitutes inherited property to be included in the value of inherited property under the principle of substantial taxation

Such determination should be based on the substance of the property. Therefore, the property of which the decedent registered under a name prior to the birth is not included in the value of the inherited property (see Supreme Court Decision 97Nu669, Nov. 14, 1997).

2) The facts acknowledged earlier and the following are revealed based on the facts found and the evidence produced at the time.

In full view of the foregoing circumstances, the issue of the shares in the name of the deceased is recognized to have been trusted by Kim △△△ to the deceased.

A) On December 31, 1978, 1978, when the allocation of new shares was excluded from the deceased at the time of the capital increase, only the spouse, siblings, and children, who are the close family members of the Kim Jong-gu president, and the shares of the shares was allocated to the deceased. It would be more natural to view that the deceased, who was the mother of the Kim Jong-gu spouse, would have worked in AA by 1998, would have been allocated 30,80 shares or shares of the △△△ bank at the time of the time, while it would be more natural to view that the deceased, who was the president or the Kim △△, was assigned to the deceased and entrusted his name to the deceased.

B) Since the assessed value of the shares in question exceeds KRW 3 billion, the Plaintiffs remain at a value of KRW 1.7 billion even after paying the inheritance tax equivalent to KRW 1.3 billion with respect to the shares in question. Nevertheless, the Plaintiffs received a net order to open the shares in the name of Kim △△△△△, and there was no circumstance to deem that the Plaintiffs received the consideration from Kim △△△△△△△△△△△.

C) According to the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 5, the deceased’s shares and shares in 1992 and 193

A report on dividend income related to a general meeting of shareholders, and it can be known that the place of receipt of the notice of general meeting of shareholders is the deceased’s domicile. However, the title trust is intended to form the appearance of a title trustee, such as ownership in external legal relations, and such act is a subsequent act ordinarily incidental to the

D) Since the 40-year period has elapsed from the time of the allocation of new shares for the pertinent shares, it is persuasive for Kim △△△△ to hold the financial evidence materials, and in light of the fact that Kim △△△ acquired shares together at the time of the initial allocation, it is difficult to readily conclude that Kim △△△△ was not credibility in the statement of Kim △△△△△△, solely indicating that the time of acquisition was 1982, the time of acquisition was 1982. Furthermore, considering the situation at the time of the transfer of Kim E’s duties in charge of the management of the property of the families of the △△△△△ Group, the Plaintiffs’ material related to the pertinent shares are credibility and credibility in their statements considering the background and consistency of the testimony about the details of the developments and

3) Therefore, inheritance tax (including additional tax) imposed in relation to the shares of this case among the disposition of this case

The portion exceeding KRW 1,354,038,380, i.e., 144,961,050 (=1,498,99,430 - 1,354,038,380) is illegal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting them.