Whether shares are held in title trust or not

In a case where share price has been paid, only the nominal borrower who actually subscribed shares and paid such price shall become a shareholder as a de facto underwriter, and in full view of various circumstances, the plaintiff shall be deemed to have held a title trust.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 146,847,120 on September 3, 2007 against the Plaintiff and KRW 48,956,850 on September 5, 2007 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Kim A is the representative director and the largest shareholder of △△○○○○○○○○, which is engaged in the manufacture, wholesale, retail, etc. of furniture from 127-8, and the Plaintiff, at the request of KimA, concurrently held office as the representative director of △△△△○, a corporation operating the floor manufacturing and sales business from 14 November 14, 2001 to 8 December 2003, and concurrently held office as the non-registered managing director of △△△△, a corporation operating the floor manufacturing and sales business from 127-2, a corporation operating the floor manufacturing and sales business, etc. (hereinafter referred to as "second corporation").

B. The nominal owner of the right to own 20,000 shares of a corporation No. 1 owned by KimA (hereinafter referred to as "no. 1 shares") was changed to the Plaintiff on November 10, 2001. The LO corporation offered capital increase on the same day and allocated 20,000 shares under its name (hereinafter referred to as "no. 2 shares"). At the time of its establishment on November 14, 2001, the 10,00 shares (hereinafter referred to as "no. 3 shares") were allocated to the Plaintiff at the time of its establishment on November 14, 2001. The 1 corporation allocated 12,174 shares (hereinafter referred to as "no. 4 shares") under the name of the Plaintiff while offering capital increase on December 24, 2002.

C. The defendant deemed KimA as the title trust of the shares at issue 1 to 4 (hereinafter collectively referred to as "shared shares") and deemed as the donation by deeming KimA as the title trust of the plaintiff. In addition, the defendant deemed as the donation of the shares 9,333 shares allocated in excess of its equity ratio at the time of capital increase among the shares at issue 2 shares as the donation by an inequal increase in capital, and decided and notified the plaintiff of September 3, 2007, the amount of gift tax of 146,847,120 won (the amount of gift in 2001), and the amount of gift tax of 48,956,850 won (the amount of gift in 202) on September 5, 2007 (the total imposition of gift tax on September 3, 2007 and on September 5, 2007).

D. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on November 15, 2007, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on September 26, 2008.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1, 6, 7, 8 evidence, Eul 5 evidence (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The defendant invoked the contents of the agreement on March 24, 2003 (A evidence 4-2) and used them as the basis for the title trust by KimA to the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff did not participate in the preparation of the agreement and concluded an agreement on the same contents as that stated therein, and was signed on the above agreement to change the plaintiff's guarantee obligation, and was merely signed on the agreement in order to change the plaintiff's guarantee obligation. The plaintiff directly prepared funds through MaB, etc., which is the plaintiff's punishment, and paid the purchase price of shares or paid the total purchase price of shares (the 1,2,4 shares) (the 3 shares). Accordingly, the plaintiff did not have been held under title trust by KimA.

(b) Related statutes;

It shall be as shown in the attached Form.

(c)a recognition;

(1) The main contents of the agreement concluded on March 24, 2003 between the Plaintiff and KimA are as follows.

* Major contents of the agreement

1. A shall pay 50 million won in its capital in the name of B, and the capital details shall be 400 million won in the name of B at the time of establishment of a new foundation of △△△△△△ Group (State) 400 million in the name of KRW 100 million in the name of B at the time of establishment of a new foundation of △△△△△△ Group. In addition, as of December 24, 2002, 121.740.00 won in the name of B out of the capital increase of △△△△ households (State).

2. Eul shall assume office as a representative director of the managing director of the Jeju Do governor-gu Office on December 1, 2001, and the representative director of the Jeju Do governor-gu Office on December 1, 2001

However, (State) The date of incorporation of the ○○○ Factory shall be November 14, 2001, and the date of appointment on the register of the company shall be November 14, 2001. Eul shall be the shareholders and executive officers (representative director and managing director) of the above two companies, under its care for the development of the company, and the final decision shall be approved by Gap.

3. Eul does not recognize the capital stock of the above two companies of 30 billion won or less per year after the date of their inauguration, as it considers that the service period of the above two companies is less than 30 billion won, or that at the time of their retirement, the amount of capital of 100 million won in addition to the capital of the company of △△△△△△△ 20 million 20 million 20 million 30 million 30 million 30 million 30,000 30 30,000 30 30,000 60 30.

5. Where the annual operating income amount of not less than 30 billion won during the period of service of not less than five years Eul has been achieved for not less than five times, the current capital (521,740,000 won for 521,740,000 won for △△△△△ households, and 100,000,000 won) shall be sensitive, and the stocks certificates kept by Gap shall be discarded;

7. A shall not make any repayment or default of any obligation, or any benefit of personal property or property of a person B at the time of bankruptcy, which is performed in the course of performing the external business of the corporation, on account of the relationship between B and Do Governor, as the representative director of the (State) △△△ party, and in such case, A shall be fully responsible

(2) At the time of the Plaintiff’s acquisition of outstanding shares, the price per share was KRW 10,000.

(3) The status of the shareholders composition from the business year 2001 to the business year 2003 of the first and second corporations is as shown in the following Table 1:

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 1-4 (including each number), the purport of the whole legal theory

D. Determination

In general, the burden of proving the facts of taxation requirement in a lawsuit seeking revocation of disposition imposing tax shall be imposed on the tax authority. However, if it is revealed that the facts of taxation requirement in light of the empirical rule have been presumed in the specific litigation process, it cannot be readily concluded that the pertinent tax disposition is an unlawful disposition that does not meet the taxation requirement, unless the other party proves that the pertinent facts in question cannot be eligible for application of the empirical rule (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Du6604, Feb. 22,

[Reference]

The plaintiff is presumed to be a shareholder of the company in the register of shareholders, but if the company has invested shares in its name with the consent of the other party and paid the price of shares, only the nominal borrower who actually acquired shares and paid the price shall be deemed to be a shareholder as a de facto underwriter. In full view of the above facts of recognition and the following circumstances revealed therefrom, KimA held that the shares of this case were trusted in trust to the plaintiff.

shall be judged by the court.

① According to the agreement between the Plaintiff and the 20.3 billion won for the above 20 billion won for the purpose of acquiring shares, it is difficult to view that the 200 billion won for the above 20.3 billion won for the above 100-day capital increase by Kim 2000 won for the above 20-day capital increase, and there is no evidence to view that the above agreement was made by coercion 1, Kim 200,000 won for the above 10-day capital increase by the 200-day capital increase by the 100-day capital increase by the 200-day capital increase by the 200-day capital increase by the 100-day capital increase by the 200-day capital increase by the 100-day capital increase by the 200-day capital increase by the 100-day capital increase by the 100-day capital increase by the 2010-day capital increase by the 2010-day capital increase by the 201010-day capital increase.

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.