Gwangju District Court 2009Guhap3071 (O April 22, 2010)

early 2009 Mine0539 (20 May 20, 2009)

Appropriateness of the assertion that there was no tax avoidance purpose in stock title trust

The fact that the purpose of title trust is not specifically disclosed, even if there was no result of tax avoidance, such as secondary tax liability as oligopolistic shareholders after the title trust, cumulative global income tax burden due to dividends, this is merely a situation after the title trust was made.

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke the disposition of imposition of gift tax of KRW 75,176,540 against the plaintiff on August 4, 2008.

1. Case issues and judgment

The key issue of the instant case is whether the Plaintiff, the representative director of an urban comprehensive construction corporation, participated in new shares increase for consideration on December 31, 2003 and title trust of 26,500 shares (hereinafter “instant shares”) with new shares to new shares was made for the purpose of tax avoidance. On the premise that the first instance court bears the burden of proving that “the Plaintiff did not have the purpose of tax avoidance in title trust,” under the premise that “the Plaintiff has no objective of tax avoidance in the title trust,” but the Plaintiff asserts that “the Plaintiff did not have the objective of tax avoidance in the title trust,” but the overall purport of the pleadings in the evidence No. 3, the Plaintiff asserted that the title trust of this case was made in order to obtain cooperation from new shares, but it does not appear to have a clear relationship between the business cooperation and the title trust of this case, and whether the Plaintiff did not have any objective of tax avoidance after considering the fact that there was a lack of evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s new shares as the result of tax avoidance in the title trust of this case.

2. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this case is as follows, except for the rejection of the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 10, which is insufficient to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion due to additional documents submitted at the court of first instance, and is the same as the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this Court cited it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.