Whether the requirements for deemed donation under Article 32-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283, Dec. 31, 1990) can be satisfied in cases where a transfer of shares is not made on the register of shareholders, although the statement on the status of share transfer is stated as being acquired (negative)

The transfer of registered shares cannot be asserted against the company unless the name and address of the acquisitor are entered in the register of shareholders. Thus, insofar as the transfer of a right, which is the requirement of deemed donation pursuant to Article 32-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283 of Dec. 31, 1990), is required for the transfer or exercise of the right, which is the requirement of deemed donation pursuant to Article 32-2(1) of the same Act, the actual owner and the nominal owner cannot be deemed to be different. Thus, even if the statement of stock transfer, which is a document to be submitted at the time of reporting the tax base and tax amount of corporate tax, cannot be the same as the list of shareholders

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 Domin-young and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 2 others

Head of Yeongdeungpo Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu27305 delivered on December 24, 1992

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. Determination on the first ground for appeal by the defendant litigation performer

The court below acknowledged that, when Nonparty 1, the representative director of the non-party company, reported the tax base and amount of corporate tax on the income in the year 1986 of the non-party company's 1986 to the Government, the above non-party company's 250,000 share shares issued by absorbing the non-party company's substitute insignia on July 1986 and submitted a report attached thereto, stating that the plaintiff acquired 112,500 share shares and 137,50 share shares in order to avoid imposition of capital gains tax. However, the plaintiff actually acquired 250,00 share shares in the above non-party company's above company's company's shareholder registry, and the above non-party 2 did not have any entry as a shareholder of the above non-party company's shareholder registry, and therefore, the court below determined that the above non-party company's transfer of shares could not oppose the company's transfer of shares without the name and address of the non-party company's shareholder registry, and thus, the above transfer requirement and its tax amount can not be reported.

In light of the records and comparison of relevant evidence, the court below did not properly conduct the examination as stated in the above findings of fact and did not err in finding any facts contrary to the rules of evidence, and if the facts were as determined by the court below, the above stated in the detailed statement of the situation of the share transfer cannot be deemed as being trusted to the above non-party 2. Thus, there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no reason to discuss.

2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

In short, the theory is merely merely a failure to properly examine the original judgment or criticism that there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles, and thus, it is difficult to accept the guidance.

3. Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon-young (Presiding Justice)