In full view of the facts, the imposition of gift tax by the plaintiffs' title trust is legitimate.

In full view of the fact-finding, the Plaintiffs’ comprehensive authorization, including the names of shareholders when issuing a certificate of personal seal impression, is deemed to have been granted when one shareholder who owns the entire shares appears to have avoided the application of income progressive tax rate and the secondary tax liability for delinquent amount. In light of the fact that it appears that the Plaintiffs could have avoided the secondary tax liability regarding the application of income progressive tax rate and delinquent amount.

Article 4 (Gift Tax Liability)

Legal fiction of donation of title trust property under Article 45-2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

2013Guhap20517 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

ParkA et al. 1

○ Head of tax office

January 23, 2014

February 20, 2014

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

Each imposition of principal tax and additional tax as stated in the separate sheet No. 1 that the Defendant against the Plaintiffs;

all of each subparagraph shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. OOO(hereinafter referred to as "OOO") is a corporation established for the purpose of the manufacture and sale of composite fertilizers. The plaintiff B was registered as the ○○ representative director or director from December 28, 2006 to April 20, 2008, and the plaintiff Park Ho as the ○○ director and the representative director from January 16, 2007 to April 20, 2008, respectively, and the plaintiff Park Ho was registered as the ○○ representative director and the representative director from August 11, 2009 to August 20, 2009.

B. The director of the regional tax office of ○○○○○○ from June 27, 2011 to November 10, 2011, upon conducting an investigation of changes in stocks with respect to ○○○○○○○○, which was held by the Plaintiff LeeB, as seen above, and the actual owner of 39,000 shares of ○○○○, which was held by the Plaintiff LAB, (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the shares in this case”) and owned by the said 39,00 shares of ○○, which were held by the said Plaintiff LA, as the Plaintiffs.

to the defendant on or before December 2011, by deeming that a title trust was made to him/her, and deeming it as a donation, and deeming it as taxation data to him/her.

Accordingly, on March 6, 2012, the defendant notified the plaintiffs of each gift tax (including additional tax).

C. On August 28, 2012, the Plaintiff is dissatisfied with each of the above dispositions and filed an objection with the Tax Tribunal.

Although an appeal seeking the revocation of the instant disposition was filed, the claim was dismissed on November 20, 2012.

D. On December 2, 2013, when the instant lawsuit was pending, the Defendant revoked ex officio the part of the penalty tax imposition in the instant disposition, and subsequently imposed the same amount on the Plaintiff by clarifying the type of penalty tax and the grounds for calculation thereof (hereinafter the foregoing disposition on March 6, 2012).

2.As to the imposition of additional gift tax for each gift tax, "the disposition in this case" is referred to as "the disposition in this case."

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The Plaintiffs asserted that the instant disposition is unlawful on the following grounds.

1) The Plaintiffs permitted the registration as an officer on the corporate register of HongGG upon request by HongGG’s father, who is the father of redD, redE, and redF. Since HongE, the actual operator of ○○○○○○, forged a share transfer and takeover contract in the names of the Plaintiffs, entered the Plaintiffs as shareholders, and there was no agreement between the Plaintiffs and RedE on the title trust of the instant shares, the title trust relationship is not established.

2) Even if the title trust relationship is established, ○○ at the time of 2006, the unpaid benefits,

Although it was difficult to impose taxes on the 4th insurance premium in arrears, tax due to material transactions, and damages caused by fraud, it is doubtful whether the Plaintiffs distributed stocks to avoid taxes as an oligopolistic shareholder in 2007 and 2008, as it was predicted that the sales of ○○○ in 2007 and 2008 have increased rapidly. If there was a purpose of tax avoidance, it is possible to close ○○ and establish a new corporation, and thus, the RedE did not have the purpose of tax avoidance.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Table 2 shall be as stated in the relevant statutes.

C. Determination

1) Determination on whether a title trust relationship is established

The provision on deemed donation under Article 41-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act shall apply in cases where a real owner or a nominal owner makes registration, etc. in the future of the nominal owner by agreement or communication with respect to property which requires a registration, etc. for the transfer or exercise of rights. As such, where the tax authority unilaterally makes registration, etc. in the name of the nominal owner, regardless of the intent of the nominal owner, it shall not be applicable in cases where the tax authority establishes only the fact that the actual owner is different from the nominal owner, and where the tax authority proves that the registration, etc. of the nominal owner was made in the unilateral act of the real owner regardless of the intent of the nominal owner, the nominal owner who asserts that it was made in the unilateral act of the real owner shall be deemed the nominal owner (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du15780, Feb. 14, 2008). Moreover, the title trust relationship is not necessarily established by an express contract between the truster and the trustee, but may also be established

In light of the above legal principles, even if the facts acknowledged in a criminal trial are not bound by the facts of this case in a public health department, civil or administrative litigation, the facts acknowledged in the judgment of the related criminal case are valuable evidence in civil or administrative litigation, and thus, it cannot be recognized that facts against this in the related civil or administrative case, unless there are special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 81Nu324 delivered on September 13, 1983), and evidence Nos. 3 through 5-2, 12-1 through 13 of evidence Nos. 12-1 and 12-13 as a whole, in full view of the whole purport of the pleadings, 1).

전HH, 강II 등은 2011. 12.경, 원고 박AA는 2011. 12. 9.경 각 수사기관에 홍EE가 자신들 명의의 주식양도양수계약서를 위조ㆍ행사하였다고 고소하였고, 홍EE는 수사기관에서 조사를 받으면서 위 위조사실을 모두 인정한 사실, ② 홍EE는 위 위조사실에 대하여 사문서위조죄 및 위조사문서행사죄로 벌금 300만 원의 약식명령(서울동부지방법원 2011고약16385) 및 벌금 100만 원의 약식명령(서울동부지방법원 2011고약16658호)을 각 받았는데, 정식재판을 청구하여 2012. 4. 13. 서울동부지방법원 2012고정290, 291호(병합)로 벌금 300만 원을 선고받았고, 위 판결은 그 무렵 그대로 확정된 사실, ③ 위 확정판결의 범죄사실에는 홍EE가 2008. 1. 23. ○○○ 주식 4,200주에 관하여 양도인을 이JJ, 양수인을 원고 이BB로 한, ○○○ 주식 7,200주에 관하여 양도인을 홍FF, 양수인을 원고 이BB로 한, ○○○ 주식 1,080주에 관하여 양도인을 이JJ, 양수인을 원고 박AA로 한, ○○○ 주식 4,920주에 관하여 양도인을 박CC, 양수인을 원고 박AA로 한 각 주식양도양수계약서를 위조ㆍ행사하였다는 내용이 포함된 사실, ④ ○○○의 주주로 등재되었던 박KK은 2012. 4. 17.경 수사기관에 '홍EE가 박KK가 2009. 7. 30. 원고 박AA에게 ○○○ 주식 33,000주를 양도하였다는 내용의 주식양도양수계약서를 위조ㆍ행사하였다'고 고소하였고, 홍EE는 수사기관에서 조사를 받으면서 위 위조사실을 모두 인정하고 2012. 7. 13. 사문서위조죄 및 위조사문서 행사죄로 벌금 50만 원의 약식명령(서울동부지방법원 2012고약7203)을 받았으며, 위 약식명령은 그 무렵 그대로 확정된 사실은 인정된다. 그러나 한편, 앞서 본 처분의 경위 및 앞서 든 증거들과 을 제5호증의 1의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 원고 박AA는 이 사건 주식에 관한 증여세에 대한 조사가 종결된 후인 2011. 12. 9.경에 이르러서야 홍EE를 사문서위조 및 위조사문서행사죄로 고소한 점, ② 비상장법인의 경우 임원의 지위에 있는 사람은 주주를 겸하게 되는 것이 통상적인데, 원고들과 홍EE는 친척관계로서 홍EE가 원고들로부터 임원 등재의 동의를 구하면서 주주명부에의 등재에 관하여는 동의를 구하지 않았다는 것은 이례적으로 보이는 점, ③ 원고 이BB는 2006. 12. 28.부터 2008. 4. 20.까지 ○○○의 대표이사 또는 이사로, 원고 박AA는 2007. 1. 16.부터 2008. 4. 20.까지 ○○○의 이사 및 대표이사로 각 등재되어 있었고, 원고 박AA는 2009. 8. 11.부터 현재까지 사내이사 및 대표이사로 등재되어 있는 등 각 비교적 오랜 기간 동안 ○○○의 임원으로 등재되어 있었던 점, ④ 홍EE는 필요한 경우 원고들로부터 인감증명서 등 각종 서류와 인감도장 등을 손쉽게 교부받아 ○○○과 관련된 업무를 처리하여 왔던 점, ⑤ 원고 박AA는 2011. 9. 29. 이 사건 주식과 관련하여 ○○지방국세청 세무공무원들로부터 조사를 받으면서 '2008. 1. 이JJ로부터 ○○ 주식 1,080주를 취득하였다. 당시 ○○○에서 전반적인 업무를 지휘하던 조카 홍EE에게서 주식취득과 관련된 내용을 전화로 들은바 있으나 취득과정에서 직접 처리한 일은 없다. 조카 홍D가 사업을 하려다 사기를 당하기도 하고 사업상 돈이 필요하다하여 여러 차례 사업자금을 빌려준 적이 있는데 돈을 갚을 방법이 없다하여 홍D, 홍EE 형제가 주식에 이름을 올려준 것으로 생각한다. 2008년 중에 ○○○ 주식을 취득, 양도한 건은 친척들간 채권, 채무관계에 의한 것일 뿐이고 자세한 내용을 알지 못한다.'라는 내용의 문답서에 서명ㆍ무인을 하기도 한 점, ⑥ 위 각 형사판결과 관련하여 홍EE로서는 자신을 도와준 원고들이 거액의 증여세를 부과당할 처지에 있게 되자 원고들의 책임을 면해주려는 의도를 가지고 원고들의 고소 내용을 자백하였을 가능성이 커 보이는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 위 각 형사판결의 사실판단을 그대로 채용하기는 어렵다고 할 것이고, 달리 홍EE가 원고들의 명의를 도용하여 이 사건 주식을 취득하였다고 인정할 만한 증거가 없으며, 오히려 원고들이 홍EE에게 인감증명서 및 인감도장 등을 교부할 당시 ○○○의 임원 명의에 한정하지 아니하고 주주명의를 포함한 포괄적인 수권을 한 것으로 봄이 상당하다고 할 것이다.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

2) Determination as to whether the purpose of tax avoidance is recognized

The legislative purport of Article 45-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is to effectively prevent the act of tax avoidance using the title trust system and realize the tax justice. Thus, the proviso of the same Article is applicable only where the purpose of tax avoidance is not included in the purpose of the title trust. In such a case, the burden of proving that the purpose of tax avoidance was not included in the purpose of the title trust lies in the person claiming it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Du2192, Jul. 23, 1999; 2003Du13649, Dec. 23, 2004). Therefore, with respect to the absence of the purpose of tax avoidance, it may be proved by the method of proving that there was another purpose of tax avoidance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Du7733, May 12, 2006); the title holder who bears the burden of proving that there was no objective and objective purpose of tax avoidance in the future.

In light of the above legal principles, the Defendant’s ground of appeal as to this case is justifiable.

In full view of the following circumstances, i.e., ① Red E is a single shareholder who actually owns the entire stocks of ○○○○○○○, and thus distributed shares in form, and thus, it appears that ○○○ might have avoided the secondary tax liability of KRW 100 million on income accrued from income dividends and the secondary tax liability of KRW 100 million on income in arrears from 2006 to 2009. ② There is no evidence to acknowledge other clearly other purposes than the purpose of tax avoidance in the title trust of the instant shares except for witness Red E’s testimony. In light of the fact that Red E’s testimony as a direct interested party is difficult to believe that there was no tax avoidance purpose with respect to the title trust of the instant shares, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs alone is insufficient to acknowledge that there was no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed in entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.