Seoul Administrative Court 2010Guhap26933 ( November 18, 2010)

early 2010 Heavy056 (2010.04.07)

It is difficult to conclude that there was no tax avoidance purpose in stock title trust.

(1) It is difficult to readily conclude that, at the time of title trust or in the future, there was no possibility of tax evasion with respect to the corporate tax, etc. to be borne by the company in the event of oligopolistic shareholders’ secondary tax liability and dividend payment in the future. It does not change on the ground that the secondary tax liability did not accrue after the title trust or that the secondary tax liability did not

2010Nu4305 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing gift tax

USA et al.

○ Head of Tax Office and one other

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2010Guhap26933 decided November 18, 2010

May 25, 2011

June 15, 201

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The decision of the court of first instance is revoked. The imposition of gift tax of KRW 125,326,250 and the gift tax of KRW 225,468,90 on September 3, 2009 by the director of the court of first instance and the director of the regional tax office of Defendant Cririririri, which was made to Plaintiff B on September 4, 2009, shall be revoked.

1. cite the judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is the same as that of the first instance court, except for the dismissal of part of the reasons for the judgment as follows. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 4

(a)4The first term below shall be added in front of the "Sengdong," the following:

Article 43(1)1 and 2 of the Act provides that, when the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act was wholly amended by Act No. 5193 on December 30, 1996, where stocks are converted to the name of the actual owner within two years, the gift tax shall be exempted; however, where stocks are not converted to the name of the actual owner within two years, or new stocks are not converted to the name of the actual owner within two years, or after the enforcement of the Act, to be imposed by presumption that the purpose of tax avoidance exists.

B. Following the 5th term "title trust" was added to the 5th term "(no evidence exists to deem that there was a clear purpose irrelevant to the tax avoidance in relation to the re-title trust without conversion into the name of the actual owner)."

(c) there is no evidence to be recognized as the fifth fourth: the following shall be added:

오히려, 원고들은 □□어가 일방적인 거래방식으로는 대응하기 어려운 특수 거래처에 대한 영업을 위한 목적으로 △△어를 설립하였다고 주장하나, △△어 1998년 매출액의 약 78%가 ◇◇ ♤♤구, ♧♧구에서 발생하는 등 △△어 주 거래처가 ◇◇ ♤♤구, ♧♧구 일대에 집중되어 있었다는 점에서(을 제3호증, 제1심 증인 주CC의 증언), 원고들이 주장하는 △△어 설립 목적 및 그에 기초한 명의신탁 목적을 믿기 어렵고

2. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable, and all appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.