Seoul Administrative Court-2015-Gu Partnership-6864 ( December 17, 2015)

Whether the imposition of gift tax on title trust for the purpose of tax avoidance and penalty tax on unfair non-reporting is legitimate

(1) The imposition of gift tax on title trust for the purpose of tax avoidance is lawful, but it is difficult for the Plaintiffs to recognize that they had not filed a tax base without filing a tax base by unjust means according to the title trust.

Article 45-2 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

Article 47-2 (2) 1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes

2016Nu3238 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax, etc.

00 et al. 3

00. Head of tax office and 2

Seoul Administrative Court 2015Guhap6864 ( December 17, 2015)

July 20, 2016

August 10, 2016

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs and the defendants are dismissed. 2. Costs of appeal are assessed against each party.

Each gift tax (including additional tax) shall be imposed on the Plaintiffs as stated in the details of the attached disposition that the Defendants made.

Plaintiff Aaaa of the Director of the Local Tax Office upon the change in the organization of the National Tax Service on February 26, 2015;

b) Since Defendant CC Head of the tax office succeeded to the right to impose gift tax on bb, it is deemed that Defendant CC Head of the tax office, as stated in the purport of the disposition imposing gift tax on the above plaintiffs.

Purport of appeal

The plaintiffs shall revoke the part against the plaintiffs in the judgment of the first instance of u 300.1, and revoke the disposition of imposition of gift tax (including additional tax) equivalent to the revoked part.

The Defendants: The part against the Defendants in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the Plaintiffs’ claims corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

The grounds alleged by the Plaintiffs and the Defendants in the trial at the time of appeal do not differ significantly from the contents alleged by the Plaintiffs and the Defendants in the first instance trial, and even if each evidence submitted in the first instance trial is examined in entirety from the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 8 through 11 submitted in the trial, the first instance court’s decision rejecting some of the claims by the Plaintiffs and the Defendants is justifiable. Accordingly, the grounds for the court’s explanation in this case are the same as the part of the grounds for the first instance judgment, and therefore, they are cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of

Therefore, all appeals by the plaintiffs and the defendants are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.