logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전고등법원 2011.09.22 2011누585
취득세부과처분취소
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. All plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

3. The plaintiffs' total costs of litigation.

Reasons

1. The court's explanation concerning this part of the reasons for the disposition is the same as the corresponding part of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the reasons are cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. At the time of the establishment of the plaintiffs' assertion C, the total amount of the share price was paid in full by the plaintiff A, and the total amount of the share price was merely a title trust by the plaintiff A, which was 100% of the total number issued and outstanding shares were owned by the plaintiffs since it was merely a title trust by the plaintiff A. Thus, even if part of the shares were transferred to E and F and again acquired by transfer, it is not changed to the ratio (10%) of the total share shares owned by the plaintiffs after transfer and takeover to the whole shares (10%). Thus, the plaintiffs are not liable to pay

3. Entry in the judgment of the first instance of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

4. Determination on the assertion on title trust

A. In light of the following circumstances, it is recognized that the Plaintiff A lent the name of D at the time of incorporation to acquire the instant shares and paid for the acquisition price of the shares.

① On January 6, 2004, at the time of incorporation C, the Plaintiff withdrawn 300 million won from the NFF account (Account Number: G) in its name, and paid the full amount of share capital for 6,000 shares, which is the total number of outstanding shares of C.

② On January 6, 2004, Plaintiff A and Plaintiff B entered into a “stock title trust agreement” with the purport that the entire holders of the instant shares and the Plaintiff’s shares are Plaintiff A, thereby exercising voting rights according to Plaintiff A’s intent, and upon Plaintiff A’s request, implementing a transfer of ownership after immediately returning the shares.

[Grounds for Recognition: Evidence No. 3, Evidence No. 4-1, 2, 5 through 8, Evidence No. 9-1, 2-2, and purport of the whole pleadings]

B. The history of the title trust theory and the position of the precedent, ① title trust is called “title trust.”

arrow