Incheon District Court 2012Guhap2300 ( October 18, 2012)

early 201J 5130 (2012.04.03)

It is not sufficient to recognize that the title was stolen, and the gift tax imposed on the title trust is legitimate.

(As in the judgment of the first instance court), it is not sufficient to recognize that the accusation was withdrawn after the complaint was filed with an investigative agency, and that the name was stolen due to such fact, and that there was a clear and obvious purpose of tax avoidance to the extent that it is recognized that there was no objective of tax avoidance.

2012Nu36462 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

KimA

Deputy Director of the Tax Office

Incheon District Court Decision 2012Guhap2300 Decided October 18, 2012

April 17, 2013

May 1, 2013

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 000 (including additional tax of KRW 000) on the Plaintiff on July 1, 201 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons why this court should explain, and the reasons why the court should add the judgment on the plaintiff's argument in the following paragraphs are the same as the reasons stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, and this is cited by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff was unaware of the Plaintiff, the actual owner of the instant shares, and there was no awareness that the Plaintiff had attempted to evade tax by the ChoBB. Therefore, regardless of whether the title truster, the title truster, had the intent of tax avoidance, the Plaintiff did not have the intention of tax avoidance.

B. Determination

Article 45-2 (1) proviso 1 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8828, Dec. 31, 2007; hereinafter referred to as the "former Act") provides that "where a title truster does not register property in the name of another person or transfer ownership in the name of another person without the purpose of tax avoidance, the title truster shall not be deemed to have been donated to the actual owner." This is interpreted to the effect that the main sentence of Article 45-2 (1) of the former Act shall not apply in cases where the title truster, who is the actual owner, was planned to be the subject of tax avoidance, and the actual owner of the tax reduced or excluded by the title truster, should be considered to be "title truster," and that it is reasonable to determine whether the former Act is applicable to the title truster 20, referring to "No. 9, the title truster, who is not the title truster," and "no. 9, the former Act should be applied to the tax avoidance purpose."

Thus, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.