Seoul Administrative Court-2014-Gu Partnership-70693 ( October 24, 2015)

Whether the purpose of this case’s title trust is tax avoidance

There was no limit on the number of promoters required for the establishment of a company. The tax base of global income tax under title trust differs from the amount of tax payable, and in fact, there is tax evasion amount, and there is no tax evasion purpose, such as the tax liability limit vary depending on the shareholding ratio.

2015Nu5497 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

Park AA

○ Head of tax office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2014Guhap70693 decided July 24, 2015

December 10, 2015

on 28, 2016

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The disposition of imposition of gift tax by the Defendant on August 1, 2013 by KRW 00,00,00,00 (the portion of gift tax on December 29, 201), which the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on August 1, 2013, is revoked. [The Plaintiff voluntarily withdrawn the part of the claim for revocation of the disposition of gift tax imposed by the Defendant on August 1, 2013 by the appellate court on the Plaintiff on August 1, 2013 (the portion of gift tax on April 27, 199). Accordingly, the scope of the appellate court’s trial is limited to the part of the disposition of imposition

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for this Court's ruling are as follows, and therefore, the reasons for this Court's ruling is as follows:

It shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Parts used for cutting.

○ The second 17 to 18th 18th 200 “the instant disposition” (hereinafter referred to as “the instant disposition”) shall be “(hereinafter referred to as “the donation reverted to year 2001”).

The imposition of ○○○, ○○, ○○○, and ○○○○ is considered as “the instant disposition”.

○ 6 The last parallel between the 7th parallel and the 1st parallel shall not be seen “(the plaintiff cited).”

The Supreme Court Decision 2010Du24104 Decided March 24, 201 added "The case seems to be more likely that corporate shareholders, other than the title truster and the title trustee, hold 22.5% of the total number of outstanding shares, acquire the shares of the title trustee or the procedures for accepting forfeited shares," unlike the case in this case, it is inappropriate to invoke the case in this case.

Pursuant to Part VII(5) of the Schedule “A(5%) for each shareholder,” the “A(5%) shall be deemed to be the “Plaintiff(5%),” and the “A(5%)

Go(5%) is each dismissed as “B(5%)(5%).”

○ The fact that “the actual process occurred” in Part 1 of Part 8 is followed “(in this respect, by title trust).

In addition, the Supreme Court Decision 2010Du24104 Decided March 24, 201, which held that the amount of the tax that could have been avoided, was not the case.

2. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is groundless.