In the event that co-inheritors have paid the gift tax on title trust by proxy, it does not constitute an obligation of the decedent.

In concluding a title trust agreement, even if a truster pays on behalf of the truster all the expenses incurred by the trustee due to the title trust agreement, it is extremely exceptional to deem that the parties were expected to have made such agreement to have made a gift tax due to the constructive gift of the property held in title trust, which will be imposed on the title trustee in the future.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of KRW 6,360,630,90 on July 1, 2008, in excess of KRW 5,049,217,510 on the imposition of KRW 6,360,630,90 on the Plaintiff and JeongA, ParkB, ParkD, Park E, ParkF, shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

(a) Inheritance;

O Pretains: ParkCC, and death on September 16, 2006

O His heir: A.I.A. (Legal Inheritance 3/13) of ParkCC’s spouse, ParkBB, ParkD, ParkE, ParkF, Plaintiff (each statutory inheritance share 2/13, hereinafter referred to as “he co-inheritors”)

(b) Details of the imposition and notification of inheritance tax;

1) GamB, on March 14, 2007, whose representative director was GG Petroleum Co., Ltd. or directors (from February 9, 2006 to October 10, 2006) (from October 26, 1999 to October 10, 2006; from April 24, 2007 to September 30, 2008) of HH Energy Co., Ltd. (the former trade name: GG Petroleum Co., Ltd.; hereinafter referred to as “GG Petroleum”), whose representative director was GGCC, filed a return on inheritance tax as stated in the column of “the reported value” as follows, but did not pay it.

2) On July 1, 2008, based on the result of the investigation of the inheritance tax by the investigator belonging to the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office, the defendant decided and notified the co-inheritors on July 31, 2008 that the payment deadline shall be jointly paid KRW 6,360,630,90 of inheritance tax, and thereafter, the defendant corrected the amount to be reduced to KRW 6,360,630,90. The specific calculation details are as stated below (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case").

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 3, 4, Gap 7's evidence 1-6, Eul 1, 2, 4, and 6's evidence (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Around October 200, ParkCC held title trust with 15,100 shares of GG petroleum to 4 persons, such as GGK, 00, leM, and Han NN (hereinafter “YGK”). At the time, the above ParkCC promised to bear all kinds of expenses, etc. incurred from the above title trust to 4 persons, such as GGK, etc., and the head of the competent tax office imposed a total of KRW 1,808,643,140 on 4 persons, such as GGK, on the basis of the deemed donation of trust property in the name of 4 persons, such as GGK, Y, and HanN, on August 20, 200. The co-inheritors imposed the gift tax on 1,808,643,140 won on the ground of the donation of trust property in the name of 2008.

2) Of inherited property, cash 262,192,353 won, deposit 22,28,851 won, golf membership 84,00,000 won, totaling KRW 312,159,735 won prior to the commencement of inheritance, and KRW 157,057,140 won (=680,580, 939, X 5/6.5/6,00) equivalent to the statutory equity in inheritance of Jeong among the total amount of KRW 312,159,735 won prior to the commencement of inheritance, among the inherited property (=680,580,580, 939, X 5/6.5, a small number of

(hereinafter referred to as "section 1, 2") in order

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) Changes in GG petroleum stocks on the register of shareholders

(a)the opening;

B) Title trust, etc.

(1) At the time of the death of ParkCC, all shares held in the name of co-inheritors are held in trust.

(2) 박CC은 GG석유 주식 1,960주를 박PP(박CC의 동생)에게, 1,650주를 변QQ(정AA의 조카)에게 각 명의신탁하였었다.

(3) Around October 2000, ParkCC held 4,00 shares of GG petroleum in order of 4,000 shares of GGG petroleum, i.e., gamblingR, 00 shares, 4,000 shares, 3,600 shares, 3,50 shares, 3,500 shares, and 15,100 shares of GG petroleum held in title by 4, such as GGK, etc. ("2 shares of this case").

(4) Meanwhile, from the time of the death of ParkCC, ParkB recovered and kept 30,000 shares of GG Petroleum.

c)transfer request, etc.

(1) From December 26, 1992, GG petroleum directors were in office as directors of GG petroleum, and on October 10, 2006, GG petroleum’s stuff and directors stuffB directed employees of GG petroleum of April 24, 2007 to change the title of the shares of this case according to the co-inheritors’s statutory inheritance ratio.

(2) On July 6, 2007, ParkB, ParkF, Park E-E filed a claim for the change of entry into GG petroleum in order to receive 438 shares of GG petroleum, 438 shares, 437 shares, and 437 shares, respectively, from MaA on March 20, 2007.

(3) 박BB은 2007. 8. 20. GG석유에게 자신이 2007. 3. 2. 변QQ으로부터 GG석유 주식 1,650주를 매수하였다고 하면서 명의개서를 청구하였다.

(4) On September 13, 2007, ParkB, ParkF, ParkE filed a claim for the change of holders in order of 291 shares, 290 shares, 290 shares, and 291 shares, while the principal had received 1/3 shares of GG petroleum originally owned or succeeded to from ParkCC from Jung on September 4, 2007.

(ii)return and investigation of inheritance tax;

A) On March 14, 2007, ParkB declared the inherited property and its value by inheritor (hereinafter “instant declaration”) according to the statutory equity ratio of co-inheritors at the time of filing an inheritance tax return with the Defendant on March 14, 2007.

B) At the time of the inheritance tax investigation, the investigators of the Seoul Regional Tax Office submitted the register of shareholders (No. 7 No. 1, 2, 3) with respect to the current status of the shares of GG petroleum.

3) Disputes among co-inheritors

A) On February 27, 2007, the Plaintiff and Park DoD filed a lawsuit against GaG Petroleum’s 30,000 shares of GG Petroleum (U.S. District Court 2007Gadan7910), claiming that the shares of GG petroleum in the name of co-inheritors at the time of the death of GabB was donated by Park CC, and that the shares of GG petroleum in the name of 4 persons, such as GGK, should be excluded from the share of inheritance because they were donated from Park CC (the above court rendered a favorable judgment against the Plaintiff on September 5, 2009, but Park B appealed appealed appealed (the District Court 2009Na13155) but dismissed on March 17, 2010).

B) At the time of the report of this case by ParkB, such as the continuation of the lawsuit as described in the above paragraph (a) among co-inheritors, disputes arising in relation to the division of inherited property were raised by dividing between co-inheritors into ParkB, Park F, Park E, Park E, ParkE-A, Park D, and the Plaintiff.

4) Imposition of gift tax on Park K, K, etc. and payment by proxy of co-inheritors

A) The chief of the competent tax office imposed and notified each gift tax of KRW 492,461,760 on the title trustee Park K and White, and WhiteM of KRW 420,815,580, and HanN of KRW 402,904,040 (the total amount of gift tax is KRW 1,808,643,140; hereinafter referred to as “instant gift tax”).

B) On August 20, 2008, co-inheritors paid the gift tax by proxy around August 20, 2008.

5) Other circumstances

Co-inheritors were unable to complete the registration of inheritance concerning land and buildings among inherited property and the transfer of title to golf course membership rights even from March 31, 2007 until September 30, 2007, which was six months from March 31, 2007.

[Ground of recognition] The above evidence, evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 7-1, 2, 3, and 9 of evidence Nos. 7-1, 2, and 9, fact-finding with the director of the Gangnam District Office, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) Determination as to the first proposal

A) According to Article 14(1)3 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, an obligation borne by an ancestor at the time of commencement of inheritance shall be deducted from the value of inherited property. The above obligation is established at the time of commencement of inheritance and if the obligation itself becomes final and conclusive at the time of the commencement of inheritance, the obligation shall be subject to deduction even if the amount is determined after the death of the ancestor. However, according to Article 14(4) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and Article 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the above obligation shall be proved by the method of proof, such as a contract for debt burden, a creditor confirmation, a document evidencing the establishment of security and payment of interest, etc., and the above documents shall be the documents

B) In order to verify the fact that ParkCC, which is to be imposed on four persons, including Park K, Park K, etc., of this case, promised to pay the gift tax instead of the Plaintiff, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff, a co-inheritors of ParkCC, paid the Plaintiff the gift tax to four persons, such as Park K, etc. at the time of title trust of the second shares of this case, on the ground that Park K, Park K, etc., the Plaintiff, a co-inheritors of Park K, paid the amount equivalent to the gift tax of this case imposed on 4 persons, such as Park K, etc., and it is difficult to deem that there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise, and further, even in the case of the conclusion of a title trust agreement, even if the truster pays various expenses incurred due to title trust on behalf of the parties, it is extremely difficult to view that the title trustee was the gift tax of this case and the gift tax of this case, which would have been imposed on the title truster, and there is no reason to deem that the title trustee was the gift tax of this case.

2) Judgment on the second proposal

A) According to each provision of Article 19(1) and (2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, in order to obtain a spouse’s inheritance deduction from the taxable value of inherited property, an inherited property should be divided and reported to the inheritor’s inherited property by six months from the day following the due date of reporting the tax base of inherited property. In order to obtain a spouse’s inheritance deduction, first of all, an inheritor must divide the inherited property. However, as the inheritance tax and Gift Tax Act do not have any separate provision on the method of division of inherited property, the method of division shall follow the procedure of division of inherited property as prescribed by the Civil Act. According to each provision of Articles 1012, 1013(1) and (2), and 269 of the Civil Act, the method of division of inherited property shall be determined by an agreement among the inheritors, unless there is a designation of the inheritee as to the method of division, all the inheritors shall participate in the division agreement. If some inheritors are excluded, the division agreement becomes null and void

B) The instant case’s return to the co-inheritors and whether there was a division agreement on the effective inherited property between the co-inheritors, the fact that ParkB filed the instant report to the Defendant by one of the co-inheritors, the fact that ParkB reported the inherited property and its value by the inheritor at the time of the instant report, the fact that the transfer of ownership was made on April 24, 2007 according to the co-inheritors’s statutory shares in inheritance by way of ParkB’s instructions, as seen earlier. However, at the time of the instant decision, ParkB filed a lawsuit against ParkB by the Plaintiff and ParkB at the time of the instant decision, and there was no dispute over the inherited property by dividing it into the Plaintiff and ParkBB, ParkB, ParkF, and ParkE, and that there was no evidence to see that ParkB voluntarily reported the division of the inherited property by the heir’s spouse’s heir’s share according to the above circumstances, and there was no other reason to see that ParkB reported the change of ownership by the heir’s share in the process of the instant report.

3) Sub-determination

The plaintiff's assertion is without merit, and the disposition of this case is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

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