If it is alleged that the name of the shareholder in the register of shareholders was trusted, the party asserting such title trust relationship must prove that the name borrowed has been trusted.

In order to assert that the name of the shareholder in the register of shareholders was trusted and that there was a separate shareholder in substance as the name borrower, the party claiming such title trust relationship must prove the fact of borrowing the name in that name.

Article 38 of the National Tax Collection Act (Procedures for Attachment of Movables and Securities)

2015Guhap2410 Nullification of attachment disposition

AA

CC director of the tax office

September 30, 2016

November 18, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

On January 14, 2002, the Defendant confirmed that the attachment disposition of shares listed in the attached list against the Plaintiff is null and void.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “A”) is a corporation established on May 15, 1995 in order to engage in an civil engineering work.

B. The Plaintiff is indicated as the shareholder holding 6,500 shares out of 130,00 shares issued by Gap (hereinafter “instant shares”) from 1997 on the shareholder registry of Gap, and the remaining 123,50 shares are indicated as the shares held by D and their relatives.

C. On January 14, 2002, the Defendant seized the instant shares on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to pay value-added tax, income tax, etc. (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s defense prior to the merits

With respect to the instant lawsuit to the effect that the actual owner of the instant shares is D EE, and the instant disposition is null and void as a seizure of the EE’s property, a third party, the Defendant asserts that the instant lawsuit is unlawful on the grounds that the Plaintiff, other than the beneficial shareholder of the instant shares, could not have been infringed on legal interests due to the instant disposition, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have a direct and specific legal interest seeking confirmation of invalidity.

At the time of the instant disposition, the Defendant appears to have seized the Plaintiff’s shareholder rights against the Plaintiff on the premise that the Plaintiff is the beneficial shareholder of the instant shares. The instant disposition is a disposition on default against the Plaintiff on the grounds that the Plaintiff was delinquent in the value-added tax, income tax, etc., and it is a matter of whether the subject of attachment is the Plaintiff’s property, and whether the beneficial shareholder of the instant shares is the beneficial shareholder. Accordingly, the Defendant’s defense prior to the merits

3. Whether the instant disposition is null and void

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff, while running a construction business, was issued personal documents from the actual operator DD, which was known to the Plaintiff, and delivered them upon request, and did not invest in the Plaintiff or purchase the shares of this case. The Plaintiff is merely a person who lent the title of ownership of the shares of this case, and the beneficial shareholder of the shares of this case is EE, which is the representative director A, as of now, a beneficial shareholder of the shares of this case. Accordingly, the instant disposition was conducted against the third party’s property for the reason of the Plaintiff’s default of national taxes, and thus, it is null and void as it is impossible to realize the law.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

A person registered as a shareholder in the register of shareholders is presumed to be a shareholder of the company, and in order to reverse this, there is a burden of proof on the part of denying the shareholder's right. Thus, in order to assert that the shareholder's name was trust and that of the nominal shareholder as the nominal shareholder is a separate shareholder, the person who asserts such title trust relationship must prove the fact of borrowing the name (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da27755, Sept. 6, 2007). However, it is insufficient to reverse the entry in the register of shareholders solely on each written confirmation (Evidence No. 2 and 3) stating that "the plaintiff prepared in the name of DD and EE is the EE ownership, which is a parent of DD, and the plaintiff did not have invested KRW 65 million in the company A, and this case 6500,000,000,000."

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.