(영문) 서울고등법원 2009. 03. 18. 선고 2008누26482 판결부도와 압류등으로 부득이하게 망인의 이름으로 주식을 취득했다는 주장의 당부[국승]
Seoul Administrative Court 2008Guhap2637 ( August 22, 2008)
National High Court Decision 2007west0156 ( October 22, 2007)
The legitimacy of the assertion that the deceased acquired shares in the name of the deceased due to dishonor and seizure, etc.
At the time of a corporation’s loan to operate funds, the deceased jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation of loans on his personal qualification, and the Plaintiff was engaged in normal economic activities, such as acquiring real estate after the administrative litigation on taxes is completed and seizure is cancelled. This time, the Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed on the ground that there is no restriction on returning the nominal trust shares at this time.
The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant's disposition of imposition of KRW 91,583,960 on September 1, 2006 and the disposition of imposition of KRW 710,880,200 on the plaintiff's status of the plaintiff is revoked.
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
The court's reasoning concerning this case is as stated in Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the following changes among the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, the court's reasoning is as stated in Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the same Act.
○ 7 10 to 15 'B’ the deceased was changed as follows:
② At the time when the deceased was employed as the representative director of the company of this case, he did not receive the disposition of income by recognizing only the outflow income at the time when he was employed as the representative director of the company of this case, but did not receive the actual payment from the company of this case (the plaintiff did not have any evidence to deem that the tax authorities paid the deceased only formally even though he did not receive the actual payment, and even in the investigation of regular corporate tax on the company of this case, the tax authorities held that the salary paid to the deceased was not processed). The company of this case jointly and severally guaranteed each of the above loans obligations of the company of this case as an individual in the capacity of ○ bank at the time of receiving the operating fund from ○ bank, and there was no evidence to deem that the company of this case was engaged in other economic activities than the representative director of the company of this case. Since April 19, 199, the company was still registered as the shareholder of the
○ 7 7 Hair 7 Hair 1 et al. 3 The plaintiff Hair Hair Does not take part at all, the following changes:
③ After the administrative litigation related to the imposition of tax on the property owned by the tax authority on the property owned by the Plaintiff Jeong-○ was completed, the Plaintiff had been engaged in normal economic activities from around 1994, where the seizure of the tax authority on the property owned by him was entirely rescinded. If the Plaintiff Jung-○ entrusted the ownership of the shares of this case to the deceased at the time of the establishment of the company, there was no restriction on returning the name of the shares of this case from around the above time, and in particular, even if it was possible to convert the real name from December 31, 1998 to December 31, 1998 pursuant to Article 45-2(1)2 of the Act, the Plaintiff Jung-○ did not take all the above measures until the transfer of
2. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims shall be dismissed due to the lack of reasonable grounds, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and all appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.