[증여세등부과처분취소][공1993.5.15.(944),1319]
The case holding that Article 32-2 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283 of Dec. 31, 1990) on deemed donation does not apply to the case where executives and employees agreed to use the name in the name of the chairperson of the group, but the actual authority in relation to the shares is exercised by the chairperson of the group, on the presumption of donation on the ground that there is no purpose
The case holding that Article 32-2 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283 of Dec. 31, 1990) on deemed donation does not apply to the case where executives and employees agreed to use the name in the name of the chairperson of the group, but the actual authority on the shares is exercised by the chairperson of the group, on the presumption of donation, deeming that there is no purpose of evading gift tax
Article 32-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283 of Dec. 31, 1990)
[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jong-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-
Plaintiff 1 and 2 others, Attorneys Lee Young-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant
Head of the tax office
Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu2280 delivered on June 5, 1992
The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.
We examine the first ground for appeal.
1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the non-party 1, who was the chairperson of the above non-party 1, was not entitled to the above non-party 1's transfer of shares by means of the above non-party 1's transfer of shares, and that the non-party 1 was not entitled to the above non-party 1's transfer of shares for the purpose of tax evasion, and that the non-party 1's transfer of shares was not subject to the above non-party 1's transfer of shares for the purpose of tax evasion by the above non-party 1's transfer of shares, and that the non-party 1's transfer of shares was not subject to the above non-party 1's transfer of shares for the purpose of tax evasion, and that the non-party 1's transfer of shares was not subject to the above non-party 1's transfer of shares for the purpose of tax evasion by the above non-party 1's transfer of shares, and that the above non-party 1's transfer of shares was obviously within 8's transfer of shares.
2. However, the provision on the constructive gift of Article 32-2 of the former Inheritance Tax Act is a view established by the party member that it is not applicable in a case where there is no purpose to avoid gift tax by concealing the donation from the actual owner and the nominal owner of the property requiring registration, etc. In light of the records, if the above non-party 1 is an executive officer or employee of the Dong Branch Group with the president, and the above non-party 1 is merely a mere consent to use the name of the above non-party 1 when transferring the title of the above shares on the register of the non-party company, and the actual right of the shares of this case, such as the exercise of voting rights and the receipt of dividends, were all exercised by the above non-party 1, and the price for disposal of the shares thereafter belongs to the above non-party 1 (see subparagraph 4-1, 2, and subparagraph 5-1, 2, and 3-1, and the testimony of the non-party 2). Thus, if the above facts were made in the future, the purpose of the donation of this case did not apply to the plaintiffs.
The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the provision on deemed donation, which did not exhaust all necessary deliberation, or erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the provision on deemed donation, and it is clear that this affected the conclusion of the judgment.
3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)