Seoul Administrative Court 2015Guhap54506 ( July 16, 2015)

It is reasonable to view that the transfer of shares of this case to the Plaintiff through the title trustee is deemed to have transferred shares owned by the Plaintiff’s father.

(See the judgment of the court of first instance) The substance of stock transfer in this case shall be deemed to have been donated to the Plaintiff by the Plaintiff, and since the Plaintiff did not submit any evidence to reverse it, the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be accepted.

Article 2 (Gift Tax Taxables) of Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

2015Nu53499 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing gift tax

Z Kim

YThe director of the tax office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2015Guhap5506 decided July 16, 2015

January 20, 2016

March 9, 2006

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's donations made on August 22, 2013 to the plaintiff on May 30, 2008

A disposition to correct the gift tax of KRW 598,901,904 (including additional tax for negligent tax returns of KRW 176,275,229, additional tax for unfaithful payment of KRW 141,28,188) shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court's reasoning for this case is as follows. Each "2 August 1, 2013." The third, 5, and 6 of the first instance court's ruling No. 2, 18, 19, and 3, each "No. 22, 2013." "No. 2, 3, 5, and 6" respectively, and the fourth, up to 18, 5, and 6, are as follows. Paragraph 2 of this case stated the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance court, except for adding a decision on the plaintiff's new argument at the first instance court, it is reasonable to 00. The plaintiff's allegation that 0,000 shares were transferred to 2,00,000 won, and that 2,000,000,000 shares were owned by the plaintiff's father and 2,000,000 won, and that the plaintiff's shares were never owned by 2,000,00 shares.

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Separate from the Defendant’s instant disposition on the ground that ○○○ donated the instant shares to the Plaintiff, the head of ○○○ Tax Office imposed a gift tax on the head of ○○ on the ground that the Plaintiff trusted the instant shares in the name of ○○○○○○○○○○. Even if Kim○○ owned the instant shares in the name of ○○○○○○○○○○, the instant disposition on the ground that ○○○○ donated the shares to the Plaintiff, and the imposition disposition on the gift tax by the head of ○○ Tax Office on the ground that ○○○○○○○○○○○, which made the Plaintiff a title trust for the purpose of tax

2) Even if gift tax is imposed, the gift tax should be calculated according to Article 35 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6780 of Dec. 18, 2002), and only KRW 763,374,080 is lawful.

B. Determination

1) The instant disposition is a disposition based on Article 2(1)1 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act on the ground that Kim○○ donated the instant shares to the Plaintiff, while the head of the ○○○ Tax Office’s disposition imposing gift tax on the head of the ○○○○○○○○○ on the ground that the Plaintiff trusted the instant shares donated from Kim○○○ for the purpose of tax avoidance, based on the provision on deemed donation of title trust property under Article 41-2 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act on the ground that the Plaintiff trusted the instant shares to the head of the ○○○○○○○○ for the purpose of tax avoidance. Therefore, the instant disposition and the disposition imposing gift tax by the head of the ○○○ Tax Office are different from the grounds for disposition and relevant statutes, and thus, cannot be deemed as double taxation. The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit, so long as the substance of

3. Conclusion

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