early 201Gu0501 (23 April 2012)

It is not sufficient to recognize that a person acquired the name of the plaintiff by stealing the name.

In the application of the provision on deemed donation under the title trust, it is insufficient to recognize that the real owner’s unilateral act has been performed regardless of the intent of the nominal owner, such as the nominal owner’s registration, etc., regardless of the intent of the nominal owner, and that the acquisition by

2012Guhap2537 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

XX Kim

Head of the Daegu Tax Office

September 26, 2012

October 31, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposing gift tax of KRW 000 on the Plaintiff on May 19, 201 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. XX Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as " XX") purchased 2,760,000 shares (hereinafter referred to as "new shares of this case") in the name of the Plaintiff in the name of 000 won per share by participating in the third party allocation method of O (Yro Co., Ltd., Ltd., YL on July 8, 2008, and Yro, May 27, 2010, hereinafter collectively referred to as "non-party company"), a KOSDAQ-listed corporation, in the name of the Plaintiff.

B. According to Article 39(1)1(c) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 916, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter referred to as the "former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act") and Article 29 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23591, Feb. 2, 2012), the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office assessed the value per share on July 8, 2008 and notified the Defendant that the Plaintiff acquired the instant new shares at a price lower than the market price. Accordingly, on May 19, 2011, the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal against the gift tax amount of KRW 00 [2,760,00) x 2,700], but the Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the said decision by the Tax Tribunal for 208.201.

[Reasons for Recognition] In the absence of dispute, the part of the statement of GongA among the evidence No. 2, the part of the document of statement of GongA among the evidence No. 2, the part of the letter of commitment to the preparation of JJ representative director, Gap evidence No. 3, 5, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 2-1 and Eul evidence No. 2-2,

2. The plaintiff's assertion is as follows.

The Plaintiff’s East KimB worked in XX. The Plaintiff delivered a copy of the Plaintiff’s business registration certificate, a copy of the resident registration certificate, and a seal imprint to be employed in the above company, and the management of the above company acquired the instant new shares in the name of the Plaintiff by stealing the Plaintiff’s name to acquire the right of management of the non-party company. As such, the acquisition of the instant new shares was conducted in the name of the Plaintiff regardless of the Plaintiff’s intent, and thus, the disposition

3. Related statutes;

Attachment 'Related Acts and subordinate statutes' shall be as shown.

4. Determination

A. According to Article 45-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, where the actual owner and the nominal owner are different from the property (excluding land and buildings) which requires a registration, etc. for the transfer or exercise of the rights, the value of the property shall be deemed to have been donated to the actual owner by the nominal owner on the date when the registration, etc. was made to the actual owner (where such property is the property requiring a change of title, referring to the date following the end of the year following the year in which the date of acquisition of ownership falls) notwithstanding Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes. The provision on deemed donation under Article 45-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act applies where the actual owner and the nominal owner agree or communicate and make a registration, etc. in the future, regardless of the intent of the nominal owner. In such cases, where the tax authority unilaterally proves that the actual owner is different from the nominal owner, and it shall be proved that the unilateral act was performed by the actual owner regardless of the intent of the nominal owner (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du7Du14.

B. Some of the evidence evidence No. 2 is insufficient to acknowledge that the instant vessel owner acquired the instant vessel owner in the name of the Plaintiff by stealing the Plaintiff’s name regardless of the Plaintiff’s intent, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.