early 2012west 4276 ( September 26, 2012)

It is insufficient to prove that it was conducted by the actual owner's unilateral act.

In cases where the actual owner and the nominal owner are different from the actual owner in cases of property requiring the transfer or exercise of rights, registration, transfer, etc., the nominal owner must prove that the registration, etc. was conducted in a unilateral act of the actual owner regardless of the intent of the nominal owner. However, the gift tax disposition is legitimate due to lack of proof

2013Guhap6084 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

the United Nations A

Head of Sungbuk Tax Office

July 5, 2013

July 26, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff shall bear the litigation costs.

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 00 on April 1, 2012 against the Plaintiff and KRW 000 on the gift tax of KRW 1997, and KRW 00 on the gift tax of KRW 1998 and KRW 000 on the gift tax of 2004.

1. Details of the instant disposition

A. The head of Seodaemun Tax Office conducted an integrated investigation of corporate tax on Nonparty BB Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “BB Construction”) and notified the Plaintiff of the taxation data by deeming that apA, the representative director of the BB Construction, was suspected of title trust of BB Construction stocks.

B. The defendant conducted an investigation of gift tax on the plaintiff, and held title trust with 3,000 shares issued by capital increase on April 15, 1997 (10.930 won per share) on 30 March 1998, 5,00 shares issued by capital increase (11,010 won per share) and 24,00 shares issued by capital increase on 30 December 30, 204 (200 won per share, and 24,000 shares issued by capital increase, and 200 shares (20 won per share, hereinafter referred to as 'the shares' in this case). The defendant did not change the meaning of 00 won or more after the end of 2004, but did not change the contents of the gift tax on 01 or more per share to the plaintiff under Article 45-2 (1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (200,000 won or more per share, and there was no change in the meaning of this case 's provisions before 2019 or 4819-19 of the former Act.

C. On May 23, 2012, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an objection with the Defendant, but was dismissed on July 2, 2012, and again filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on September 26, 2012, but was dismissed on December 5, 2012.

[Grounds for Recognition] The purpose of the entire arguments, as described in the 1st, 2, 3, 2, 2, 5, 6, 8, 1, 7, 1, 2, 1, 2, 3, 2, 3, 2, 3, 1, 3, 3, 2, 3, and 3, and 2, and 1, 3, and 2, and 3.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant shares did not constitute a title trust agreement with leA with respect to the instant shares, and that the Plaintiff unilaterally entered the Plaintiff in the register of shareholders as if the Plaintiff was the owner of the instant shares, by stealing the Plaintiff’s seal impression and certificate of personal seal that leCC received from the Plaintiff on the grounds that it is necessary for the company’s business

B. The contents of the legal provisions of this case are as follows (The relevant provisions of the former Act do not have any particular difference in essential changes related to the issues of this case, and they do not have any specific difference.)

Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act;

Where the actual owner or the nominal owner of any property (excluding land and buildings; hereafter the same shall apply in this Article) which requires a registration, etc. for the transfer or exercise of rights, is different from the actual owner or the nominal owner, the value of the property shall be deemed to have been donated to the actual owner by the nominal owner on the day (where the property is subject to a transfer of ownership, referring to the day following the end of the year following the year in which the date of acquisition of ownership falls) on which the registration, etc. is made under the nominal owner, notwithstanding Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes: Provided, That this shall not apply

1. Where any property is registered under another person's name without any purpose of tax evasion, or a transfer of ownership is not made under the name of the actual owner who has acquired the ownership;

(2) Where any property is registered, etc. under the name of another person, or transfer is not made under the name of the actual owner, or where the name of stocks, etc. is not converted under the name of the actual owner during the grace period, it shall be presumed that there is a purpose of tax evasion: Provided, That this shall not apply where the transferor files a report on the change of ownership, along with a report on tax base of capital gains under Articles 105 and 110 of the Income Tax Act or a report on the change of ownership under

(6) "Taxes" in paragraphs (1) 1 and (2) means national taxes and local taxes provided for in subparagraphs 1 and 7 of Article 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and customs duties provided for in the Customs Act.

C. In the case where the actual owner and the nominal owner are different from the actual owner in property requiring registration, recording, transfer, etc. as stipulated in the instant legal provision, the nominal owner who asserts that the registration, etc. was made in the unilateral act of the actual owner regardless of the intent of the nominal owner should prove that the registration, etc. was made (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du15780, Feb. 14, 2008). The Plaintiff’s transfer certificate lacks to prove, and there is no other evidence that, regardless of the Plaintiff’s intent, leA, etc. unilaterally registered the shares in the instant case in the name of the Plaintiff on the register of shareholders. The Plaintiff’

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed, and the costs of the lawsuit are fully borne by the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.