early 2010 Gwangju2156 ( November 17, 2010)

No title trust shall be deemed to have been made for any purpose other than tax avoidance.

In full view of the fact that the Integrated Broadcasting Act was anticipated to regulate the ownership of shares or shares in excess of a certain ratio, but there is no ground to support it, and the fact that the title trust of shares is recognized to have been held by others, and that the tax rate is increased if total income is added, it does not constitute a purpose of tax avoidance.

2011Guhap3081 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing gift tax

IsaA

Head of the North Mine District Tax Office

August 16, 2012

September 6, 2012

1. On April 15, 2010, the part of the disposition that the Defendant designated and notified the Plaintiff as a joint and several obligor of Nonparty KimB’s 2003, 2005, and 2006, which exceeds KRW 000, among the dispositions that the Defendant notified to pay, shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. One-third of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the remainder by the defendant.

The Defendant’s decision that designated and notified the Plaintiff on April 15, 2010 as joint and several taxpayers of Nonparty KimB’s 2003, 2005, 2006, and 000 won in total of gift tax is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff acquired shares in the name of KimB, the spouse of which, as indicated in the following table (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each of the instant shares”).

B. The Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff donated each of the instant shares to KimB pursuant to Article 45-2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and imposed on April 15, 2010 the amount indicated in the following table on KimB, and at the same time, designated the Plaintiff as a joint and several tax obligor and notified the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an objection with the Gwangju Regional Tax Office on July 8, 2010, and was dismissed on August 13 of the same year.

D. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a request with the Tax Tribunal on November 4, 2010, but was dismissed on June 16, 201.

[Grounds for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 and 3 (each of the items including lot numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

1) The primary motive of the Plaintiff acquiring each of the instant shares in the name of KimB was that the broadcasting company was a corporation, since around 1994, since the time when the broadcasting company was becoming a corporation, KimB was registered as a representative of the individual broadcasting company, and even in the process of incorporation, KimB did not have the right to purchase, and was strongly demanded to own the shares or shares in its own name, and the Plaintiff did not own the shares or shares in its own name, and it was anticipated that the new integrated broadcasting company, which was being promoted at the time of legislation, would be to limit the shares of one person to at least 1/3 or less, so the disposition of the instant case was unlawful on a different premise.

2) Preliminaryly, the CCC (hereinafter referred to as “CCC”) shares 25,200 25,200 are merged with CCC, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “DD network”), which the Plaintiff acquired in the name of KimB, in the name of the Plaintiff, exchanged DD network shares 25,200 with CCC shares already acquired in the name of KimB in the name of the Plaintiff at 1:1 ratio, and there is no title trust agreement between the Plaintiff and KimB for CCC shares, and KimB has already paid gift tax on the D network shares 11,200 shares, which were entrusted by the Plaintiff from the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the part on the gift tax of 000 won for the CCC shares in the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) As to the plaintiff's primary argument

Article 41-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7010, Dec. 30, 2003) provides that the legislative purpose of Article 41-2(1) is to effectively prevent tax avoidance through the title trust system and realize tax justice, so the Plaintiff’s burden of proving that the proviso of the same Article is applicable only if the purpose of tax avoidance is not included in the title trust, and that there was no other purpose of tax avoidance in the title trust (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du4300, Jan. 27, 2005). Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was no other objective and objective purpose of tax avoidance, and that there was no other evidence that the Plaintiff did not have any other purpose of tax avoidance in the name of the title trust (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Du733, May 12, 2006).

2) As to the Plaintiff’s conjunctive assertion

In light of the above facts that DB network was merged with CCC on August 31, 206, and accordingly, the Plaintiff was exchanged with DCC’s shares 25 and 200 shares, and the Plaintiff acquired them in the name of KimB, as seen earlier, and the following facts are known when the shareholders of the merged company acquire the shares of the surviving or newly incorporated company on behalf of the merged company, the replacement of the shares of the merged company is not the acquisition of the shares of the surviving or newly incorporated company, but the acquisition of the new shares of the surviving or newly incorporated company on the ground that it was difficult for CB to view the new shares under the former Act as the acquisition of the new shares under the name of the new shares under the name of the title truster, and the new shares of the surviving or newly incorporated company should be deemed to be illegal, and the new shares of the surviving or newly incorporated company, which were acquired under the name of the new shares under the name of the former Act, are not the acquisition of the new shares under the name of the new shares under the title truster, and the new shares are merely the new shares of the surviving or newly incorporated company.

3) Sub-determination

Therefore, on April 15, 2010, the part exceeding KRW 000 of the instant disposition that the Defendant designated and notified the Plaintiff as a joint and several taxpayer should be revoked in an unlawful manner.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.