Seoul Administrative Court-2016-Gu Partnership-82185 (Law No. 14, 2017)

not be deemed to have returned the proceeds of the disposition with the possession of such proceeds

(1) In the instant stock title trust, the purpose of tax avoidance exists in the instant stock title trust, and in the event of return by the deadline for filing a return, it cannot be deemed that the instant stocks were returned with the ownership of the disposal price that does not mean the return

The contents of the judgment are the same as the attachment.

2017Nu73473 Revocation of Disposition of Gift Tax Imposition

South**00 4

000 Other 4

on October 7, 2018

on April 2018

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. Each disposition imposing gift tax on the Plaintiffs listed in the separate sheet shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for this Court concerning this case are as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment except for the dismissal or addition of part of the judgment of the first instance as stated in the following Paragraph 2. Thus, the meaning of the language used in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (hereinafter the same shall apply to the judgment of the first instance).

2. Parts used or added;

○ 2. The " August 8, 201" in Part 5 of the Second Ground shall be applied to " around August 9, 201".

The attached Form 1 of the 4th page "attached Form 1," which is "attached Form 1, was subject to the imposition of each gift tax as shown in the attached list," and the attached Form 2 of the 5th page "attached Form 2" shall be added to "attached Acts and subordinate statutes".

Pursuant to the witness AA's testimony in Part 6 of the second part, " shall be taken as follows."

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the testimony of the witness AA of the first instance trial, the fact that the purchase of the instant shares from BB, etc. was demanded by BB, etc. to preserve the principal due to the decline of the share price of the non-party company around August 201, 201, compared with the fact that BB, etc. participated in the non-party company’s capital increase with the capital increase on December 201, 200

"A............" on the other hand, at the time of the title trust of this case, A........................, the title trust of this case was made with the fact that it was difficult to open and use a bank account, etc. under the name of

○ The part of the 6th page 12, " must be described as "the facts" with "the facts and evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5 of the evidence No. 9," and the part of "No. 13-16, i.e., No. 13-16." shall be described as follows:

As seen above, the purchase of the instant shares by AA from the initial BB, etc. is due to the significant decline in the share price of the instant shares. Accordingly, even if the most important opportunity to proceed to the title trust of this case can be deemed to have been for the purpose of defending the management right of the non-party company from the shareholder CCC, etc. as alleged by the Plaintiffs, it is reasonable to deem that both parties had the intent of tax avoidance as well as the main purpose thereof, and it is difficult to view that the minor reduction of tax incidental to the title trust was merely a minor reduction.”

○○ 7 1-2, “it was not .... by formation......” The part of the 10-12, “and seems to be ......” was deleted, and the 13-15 conduct was followed as follows.

"The purpose of tax avoidance" under Article 45-2 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act includes not only the avoidance of taxes to be imposed in the future, but also the case where the title truster, who had already been absent from the status of default, made it difficult for him to secure a tax claim and avoided the payment of taxes (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Du39419, Dec. 13, 2017). At the time of the title trust of this case, AA was in arrears with national taxes of at least 36 million won in total, and it did not own any specific property, only because he/she had a large amount of obligation with the Credit Guarantee Fund, etc.

The attached Form 2 of the ○○ 12 shall be deleted in the attached Form 1, and the overall title of the 15-16 shall be deleted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and all appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.