Appropriateness of the assertion that the return of title trust shares is made to the taxation on deemed donation of the acquisition of shares at low price;

It is reasonable to view that the title trust is terminated on the grounds that there was no receipt of the price for the acquisition of shares, as well as the process of the transfer of shares, and the operation of the non-party company was not neglected, and there was no lack of burden of the non-party company establishment funds or

Article 35 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

1. The defendant's disposition of imposition of gift tax of KRW 498,596,980 against the plaintiff on November 1, 2004 shall be revoked.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 29, 2000, the Plaintiff acquired shares of the non-party company as the representative director of the ○○○○○ Round Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “non-party company”) by calculating the 1,550 shares per share with a face value of KRW 10,000 (total KRW 15,500,000) per share (hereinafter referred to as the “acquisition of shares”).

B. The defendant held that since the non-party company is a corporation that has invested more than 30% of the total number of shares issued by the plaintiff and controls the non-party company as an executive officer of the non-party company (registration director), the plaintiff's acquisition of shares in this case constitutes "acquisition of assets at a price lower than the market price from a person in a special relationship under Article 35 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7010 of Dec. 30, 2003; hereinafter "former Act")."

C. Accordingly, the defendant assessed the market price of the non-party company's shares as about KRW 842,493 per share, and assessed the above KRW 1,550 per share as about KRW 842,485 per share (=1,550 X 842,485 won) and KRW 15,50,750 (=1,290,351,750 won - KRW 1,305,851,750 - 15,5000) on November 1, 2004, deemed that the plaintiff was donated to the non-party company's shares, thereby imposing gift tax of KRW 498,596,980 on the plaintiff (hereinafter "the disposition of this case").

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 89, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The acquisition of shares in this case was not the Plaintiff’s actual acquisition of shares, but the Plaintiff’s shares were in title trust to ○○, and was returned to the Plaintiff upon termination of the title trust relationship. Even if the Plaintiff was actually transferred the shares, the Plaintiff and ○ was not a specially related person as prescribed by the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. Thus, the disposition in this case was deemed to be unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) On December 15, 1993, the Plaintiff established a non-party company. At the time, KRW 50,000,000 and other establishment costs were all withdrawn from the Gangnam Branch account in the name of the Plaintiff and used.

(2) At the time of incorporation of the non-party company, the shareholders are all seven or more persons who are in a relationship of relationship with the plaintiff, and the share ownership ratio of each shareholder and the relationship with the plaintiff are as follows.

shareholder name;

Number of shares

Amount

Ratio of Shares

Relationship with the Plaintiff

Red○ ○

3,500

35,000,000

70%

Principal

○ ○

250

2,500,000

5%

Plaintiff’s spouse

○ ○

250

2,500,000

5%

The spouse of Dong Jae-in

○ ○

250

2,500,000

5%

East Eastern Red ○

Gangwon ○

250

2,500,000

5%

Red ○ Heading of Dong-in

○ Kim

250

2,500,000

5%

Employees of the non-party company

○

250

2,500,000

5%

Plaintiff’s motion

guidance.

5,000

50,000,000

100%

(3) On May 8, 1997, the non-party company issued new shares 10,500 shares via capital increase with new shares issued on an additional basis. The plaintiff transferred part of the shares previously held in the name of his family members and spouse to the previous opportunity in the name of the plaintiff, and the remaining 20% was placed in the name of the plaintiff's mother-child ○ and so on.

shareholder name;

Number of shares (shares)

Amount (won)

Ratio of Shares

Relationship with the Plaintiff

Red○ ○

12,400

124,000,000

80%

Principal

Gu○

1,550

15,500,000

10%

Plaintiff’s mother

○

1,550

15,500,000

10%

Plaintiff’s motion

guidance.

15,500

155,000,000

100%

(4) On March 29, 200, the Plaintiff transferred 10% of the shares in the name of ○○ to Madoer Plaintiff’s name. At the time, the Plaintiff did not pay a separate share transfer price to Madoer. The practical procedure was handled by Ma○○, a management director of the non-party company at the time.

(5) Meanwhile, not only the aforementioned process of transferring shares but also the operation of the non-party company, but also there was no fault that the non-party company bears the cost of establishing the non-party company or increasing its capital, and there was no distribution of profits or there was no wage received from the non-party company.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 5 to Gap evidence 10-2, Gap evidence 12-1, 2, Eul evidence 4 to Eul evidence 6, Eul's testimony and the purport of whole pleadings

D. Determination

According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant shares does not merely take over shares from U.S. ○, but is merely a return of the shares upon termination of the title trust relationship between the Plaintiff and U.S. ○, who actually held the Plaintiff’s shares in title trust. Ultimately, the acquisition of the instant shares does not constitute the acquisition of the property as provided in Article 35 of the former Act. Accordingly, the instant disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff acquired shares from U.S. ○, without further review, is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.