The transfer of shares in this case constitutes the restoration of title trust.

The transfer of the shares in this case was conducted only in the transfer transaction, and the actual owner is the plaintiff, and the transfer of shares was made in the manner of returning the name of the transferor after the title trust was held by the transferor.

Article 35 (Donation, etc. of Profits Accruing from Low or High Prices)

2014Guhap56384 Disposition of revocation of Disposition of Gift Imposition

AA

BB Director of the Tax Office

June 4, 2015

1. The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 473,59,020 of the gift tax for the year 2010 against the Plaintiff on August 1, 2013 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 12, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the transfer of 10,200 shares (CC, DD 4,00 shares, E2,200 shares, hereinafter referred to as “instant shares”) of FF (hereinafter referred to as “FE”) fromCC, DD, and EE (hereinafter referred to as “Transferr”) at KRW 5,00 per share, and on May 10, 2010, the Plaintiff reported the transfer value of the instant shares at KRW 5,00 per share in accordance with the said transfer contract.

B. As a result of the examination of changes in the source of funds and stocks with respect to the instant company from April 3, 2013 to May 23, 2013, the director of the regional tax office of theOO: (a) determined that the Plaintiff was to have acquired the instant stocks at a lower price than the appraised value based on the supplementary assessment method stipulated in the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (hereinafter “Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”); and (b) notified the Defendant, the head of the regional tax office having jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s domicile, who is the head of the

C. On August 1, 2013, the Defendant imposed gift tax of KRW 473,59,020 on the Plaintiff on the basis of the foregoing taxation data (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on April 22, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 2 and 7 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The actual owner of the instant shares is the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff recovered the title of ownership of the instant shares by lending the form of transfer, so the transfer of the instant shares is not subject to gift tax under the principle of substantial taxation because there is no transaction subject to taxation, and thus, cannot be subject to gift tax under the principle of substantial taxation. Therefore, the instant disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff and the transferor of the instant shares actually transferred the instant shares between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) Since the incorporation of the instant company aimed at manufacturing, selling, etc. precious metals on October 10, 1991, the Plaintiff actually operated the said company and was appointed as the representative director on August 3, 1998.

2) At the time of the establishment, the Plaintiff voluntarily prepared and paid the price for 20,00 shares of the instant company (one share value of 5,000 won) issued at the time of the establishment. However, according to the Commercial Act that was in force at the time, at least seven promoters at the time of establishment of a stock company have to take over shares in writing. As such, the Plaintiff has to take over shares of 5,000 shares out of 20,000 shares, and the remainder of 15,00 shares is to take over shares in the name of the Plaintiff (GG, Hanam-in H, H, Hanam-in H, Ha, GG-friendly job offering II, JJ and G-friendly K K's husband, the husband of the Plaintiff, MM and N (G 400 shares, H 3,00 shares, II 1,000 shares, J 2,000 shares, J 2,000, M 5,000, M00, N0000 shares).

3) On November 16, 1994, the Plaintiff returned 10,00 shares of the instant company from the other persons except LL, and acquired 4,000 shares in the name of the Plaintiff to avoid becoming an oligopolistic shareholder, and the remaining 6,000 shares were additionally acquired by 2,00 shares, D andCC, each of which is employees of the instant company, and 2,000 shares. Since then, on May 13, 2000, the Plaintiff received 7,000 shares of the instant company from LL and accepted 8 million shares of the instant company in the name of the Plaintiff, and the remaining 6,200 shares were transferred to 2,20 shares, respectively, by EE 2,200 shares that were employees of the instant company. Meanwhile, the transferor received from the transferee during the said process, on the other hand, the transferor did not have the share purchase price.

4) On April 12, 2010, the Plaintiff concluded a share transfer contract as seen earlier, and acquired the instant shares from the transferor. In that process, the Plaintiff did not pay the share purchase price to the transferor, and the securities transaction tax was paid directly on behalf of the transferor.

5) A shareholder, other than the Plaintiff, did not exercise rights as a shareholder, such as participating in management or receiving a dividend, and the instant company was actually operated as a company of the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] The aforementioned evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 5 through 12, Eul evidence Nos. 3 through 6, the witnessCC's testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

According to Article 35(1) and (2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, where the property is acquired by transfer from another person at a price lower than the market price, the transferee of the property shall be deemed the value of donated property equivalent to the difference between the price and the market price. However, the imposition of gift tax on the transfer of the property at a low price is premised on the fact that the transfer of the property was actually made, and if the substance of the transaction conducted in the form of transfer was returned to the nominal title holder, it cannot be deemed that the transfer of the property subject to the gift tax was made.

However, according to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the actual owner of the shares of this case is the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff was transferred the shares of this case by way of title trust and returning its name to the transferor of this case.

Therefore, the instant disposition imposing gift tax on the premise that the instant transferor and the Plaintiff actually transferred the shares, without any need to further examine, is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.