Whether liability to pay gift tax on the stocks held in title trust has been established

The existence of the purpose of tax avoidance is determined on the basis of the donor, and if a stock company was established in the name of another person and the relevant shares were held in title trust, the donor is liable to pay gift tax to the beneficiary witness who received the title trust, unless there is any counter-proof that

Donation of title trust property under Article 45-2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 5-1, 2, 3, and each statement.

A. The non-party ○○○○ Co., Ltd. was a company established on February 23, 2004 by the non-party ○○○ as the promoters of the Plaintiff and the non-party ○○○○○, etc., with the total amount of KRW 100,000,000, total amount of shares as at the time of its incorporation, KRW 10,000, total amount of shares, and KRW 10,000, total amount of shares per share as at the time of its incorporation, and KRW 3,00,

B. On July 13, 2006, the Defendant rendered a disposition imposing gift tax of KRW 4,210,200 on the Plaintiff by deeming that the Plaintiff was donated 3,000 shares from Jung-○○○ (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

2. The allegations by the parties and the determination thereof

A. The parties' assertion

The plaintiff asserted that the disposition of this case, which was rendered by the plaintiff as a donation of the above shares, should be made against ○○, which is not the plaintiff, but the plaintiff's joint and several obligation to pay gift tax on the donation of the above shares, because the representative director of the non-party company, was necessary for the establishment of the corporation and was not a donation of shares, but for the purpose of tax avoidance. Thus, the plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case, which was rendered by the plaintiff as the donation of the above shares, should be made against ○, which bears the duty of payment jointly and severally as a donor, and the defendant asserted that the above shares were trusted by ○○,

B. Determination

Article 45-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that, in cases where the actual owner and the nominal owner are different in property which requires the transfer of rights or the registration thereof, as shares, the value of such property shall be deemed to have been donated to the actual owner on the date when it is registered, etc. under the nominal owner notwithstanding Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes: Provided, That this shall not apply to cases where the property is registered, etc. under another person’s name without any purpose of

Therefore, in light of the whole purport of the argument as to whether the Plaintiff is deemed to have received a donation of the above shares under the name of ○○○○○○’s title trust, the Plaintiff’s above shares in the name of 2-1, 3, and 5-1, 2, 3, and 4,00 shares in the name of 5-1, 5-2, and testimony of ○○○○ witness, which were employed by the above non-party company while working as an employee of the above non-party company, was required for the establishment of the above non-party company under the delegation of ○○○○, and agreed upon the request of the director and the shareholders, and the amount of capital at the time of the above non-party company’s incorporation was fully invested by ○○○○○, but on the register of shareholders, the Plaintiff and the non-party ○○○○○○○ was registered as owning 3,00 shares each of 4,00 shares in the name of ○○○○○○○, which had been presumed to exist.

In addition, Article 4(4) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that the donor shall be jointly and severally liable for payment of the gift tax in cases where the donee’s address or domicile is unclear or where it is difficult to secure the gift tax even after the disposition on default is made due to the default. However, even if the donor is jointly and severally liable for payment of the gift tax to ○○○ who is the donor, the donor does not exempt the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the gift tax.

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

3. Conclusion

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