No relevant case claimed by the Plaintiff may be deemed null and void as the Supreme Court has already rendered a ruling.

The instant shares were not nominal trust for the purpose of tax avoidance, but the actual owner of the instant shares filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition imposing gift tax on himself/herself on the ground that he/she was a third party, but was finally invalidated on October 21, 2014. As such, the instant disposition cannot be deemed null and void.

2015Guhap1045 Nullification of a disposition imposing gift tax

Song AA

YThe director of the tax office

November 13, 2015

December 4, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

On January 15, 2013, the Defendant confirmed that imposition of gift tax of KRW 000,000,000 on the Plaintiff is null and void.

1. Details of the disposition;

On March 25, 2010, the Defendant issued a notice on January 15, 2013 to AA on the ground that the Plaintiff title trusted the shares of KK Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “K”) with KRW 3 million (hereinafter “instant shares”). On the same day, the Defendant issued a notice on January 15, 2013 to AA of KRW 00,000 (including additional taxes) and notified the Plaintiff of the designation and payment of joint and several liability for gift tax (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is null and void

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Defendant issued the instant disposition on the basis of the fact that the Plaintiff held title trust with AA, and the person who held title trust with AA is not A but BB. Therefore, the instant disposition is null and void due to a significant and apparent defect in the taxation disposition against a person who is not a taxpayer.

B. Determination

In addition to the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 2 through 5, Nos. 3 and 4, in addition to the purport of the pleadings, the following facts can be acknowledged: (i) the Plaintiff is the actual operator of KK; (ii) the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 1.5 billion from BB to the nominal representative director; and (iii) the Plaintiff made the Plaintiff take over the instant shares by granting it to AA; and (iv) the actual owner of the instant shares was not a title trust for the purpose of tax avoidance; and (iii) the actual owner of the instant shares was not a title trust for the purpose of tax avoidance; and (iv) the fact that the instant shares was lost (which became final and conclusive on October 21, 2014).

According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff is the title truster of the shares of this case, and it is difficult to deem the disposition of this case, which is based on such premise, as null and void.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is not accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.