Daejeon District Court-2015-Gu Partnership-105239 ( March 08, 2017)

Whether there was a stock title trust and tax avoidance purpose

(1) The Plaintiffs, who received shares in title trust from religious organizations, cannot be deemed to have no purpose of tax avoidance, are lawful to impose gift tax.

Article 45-2 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

2017Nu10959 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

00 et al. and one other

00 The head of the tax office and one other

Daejeon District Court 2015Guhap105239 ( March 8, 2017)

July 20, 2017

August 24, 2017

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. Defendant AA director of the tax office) rendered on April 1, 2015 against Plaintiff BB.

The imposition of gift tax of KRW 9,205,880 (including additional tax) and the imposition of gift tax of KRW 45,05,90 (including additional tax) by the director of the tax office on March 17, 2015 shall be revoked on March 17, 2015.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's explanation on this case is a "Defendant of No. 15 and No. 16 of the second judgment of the court of first instance."

The director of the EE Tax Office's dismissal of "the head of the 'Defendant AA Tax Office' as "the 5th 18th ' was exceeded', and 'the FF, the transferor of the 5th 'the 5th 'the 5th 'the 'the 's shares', was inevitably involved as promoters because 'the 'the 'FF' could not independently establish the company,' and there was no awareness that 'the 'the 'FF would avoid the status of oligopolistic shareholders or avoid taxes in transferring the 'the 'the transfer of the shares of this case'. However, the 'the 'the 'FF' should be determined based on the GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG, the title truster of the shares of this case, not FFF, and therefore the plaintiffs' claims should not be examined further, and therefore they are cited as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

2. Conclusion

1) At the time of April 1, 2015, Defendant EE Tax Director imposed gift tax on Plaintiff BB before the correction, but thereafter, the authority of the head of EE Tax Office was succeeded to Defendant AA Tax Director. The said imposition disposition of gift tax by the head of EE Tax Office is deemed to have been by Defendant AA Tax Director.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are dismissed in entirety due to the lack of grounds, and the judgment of the court of first instance is delivered.

This conclusion is just, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.