Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit
Seoul Administrative Court 2012Guhap4485 (Law No. 21, 2013)
Title
It is insufficient to view that there was an inevitable reason for stock title trust.
Summary
It is reasonable to view that there was a tax evaded when considering that there was an inevitable reason for the title trust of shares, although it is argued that the shares were held as a nominal director after being appointed as a nominal director, but it is insufficient to view that there was an inevitable reason for
Cases
2013Nu23463 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax
Plaintiff and appellant
IsaA
Defendant, Appellant
Head of Seocho Tax Office
Judgment of the first instance court
Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Guhap4485 decided June 21, 2013
Conclusion of Pleadings
April 24, 2014
Imposition of Judgment
May 29, 2014
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1. Purport of claim
The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of gift tax OOO on December 17, 2011 is revoked.
2. Purport of appeal
Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the Plaintiff, which orders the revocation below, shall be revoked. The part exceeding additional OOOO won in the disposition of imposition of the gift tax imposed on the Plaintiff on December 17, 2011 (=the total amount of principal and additional taxes) shall be revoked. (The Plaintiff did not appeal against the part that rejected the claim for revocation of additional OOO directors included in the above disposition among the judgment of the first instance court, and only dismissed the claim for revocation of the principal and additional taxes, and only dismissed the claim for revocation of the remainder principal and additional taxes).
Reasons
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
The reasoning of this court's judgment is as follows, except for the dismissal of part of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it is accepted by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
O No. 4 3-17 (the part concerning the revocation of the disposition to impose additional dues, 3.) shall be deleted.
O Forms 8 to 15 [4. d. 2] of the 6th page are as follows:
(2) In light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to recognize that the title trust of the instant shares was made without the purpose of tax avoidance, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be accepted, in light of the following circumstances, as seen earlier: (a) evidence and acknowledged facts as mentioned in the instant case; (b) evidence No. 15-1 to 3; and (c) evidence No. 14, No. 16, 18, and 18
(A) The Plaintiff is merely a nominal representative director of BB, and there is no ground to deem that BB’s right to manage the instant shares is stable (BB’s actual operator is SongCC, and there is no circumstance or material to deem that SongCC’s title trust without acquiring the instant shares in its name to the Plaintiff for the stabilization of management rights of BB). Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant shares were trusted in title for the stabilization of management rights of BB is difficult to obtain.
(B) The Plaintiff’s actual owner of the instant shares is difficult to accept BB’s 4. The Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant shares under the name of BB 1, and it was inevitable to acquire the instant shares under the name of CCC 2. The Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant shares under the name of CB 1 and CB 1, and the delivery of the instant shares to BD 1 after the completion of the instant period of protection (see, e.g., preparatory documents dated April 24, 2014). However, it is difficult to find that CB 1 had been used for the purchase price of the instant shares under the name of CB 10 and CB 20. In light of the fact that CB 1 and CB 2, it was difficult to find that the instant shares were under the name of CB 1 and CB 1, which were not under the control of CB 2, for instance, for lack of evidence to obtain the instant shares under the name of CB 1, 2016.
2. Conclusion
Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is groundless.