Seoul Administrative Court 2015Guhap81393 ( November 10, 2016)

As long as the title trust is recognized, the nominal owner shall prove that there has been another obvious purpose of tax avoidance.

The shares held in title trust under the name of the new Do could be avoided from applying the progressive tax rate on dividend income, from the burden of secondary tax liability under the Framework Act on National Taxes, and from the burden of deemed acquisition tax under the Local Tax Act, and could have avoided the application of the regulations on wrongful calculation, etc. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that there exists a trust in the name of

Article 45-2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (Legal Fiction as Donation of Title Trust Property)

Seoul High Court 2016Nu78983 (Law No. 19, 2017)

○ ○ ○

○ Head of tax office

Seoul Administrative Court 2015Guhap81393 ( November 10, 2016)

April 14, 2017

May 19, 2017

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance court shall be revoked. The defendant's gift tax assessed against the plaintiff on April 1, 2015 KRW 51,456,180 (Ga)

The imposition of tax shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: "the defendant," "No. 1, 2015," "No. 4, 2015," "No. 17," "No. 25," "No. 4, 2017," and "No. 25," were added to "No. 25," and therefore, the court's explanation is identical to the ground for the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8 (2)

2. 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. It is so decided as per Disposition.