Cheongju District Court-2016-Gu Partnership-10935 ( March 30, 2017)

Whether the requirements for title trust property under Article 45-2 (1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act are satisfied

It is reasonable to view that the title trust of the instant shares was entrusted to the Plaintiffs for reasons other than the purpose of tax avoidance, and it is merely the absence or minor degree of tax avoidance. Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the title trust of the instant shares was conducted without the purpose of tax avoidance is with merit.

Article 45-2 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

Article 352 (1) of the former Commercial Act

Daejeon High Court (Cheongju) 2017Nu2944 ( November 01, 2017)

XxX1

O Head of tax office

Cheongju District Court Decision 2016Guhap10935 Decided March 30, 2017

August 30, 2017

November 1, 2017

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant imposed a gift tax of KRW 106,072,480 on Plaintiff FF on March 6, 2015, and the imposition of KRW 205,253,60 on Plaintiff GG on April 1, 2015, respectively.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the court's explanation is accepted by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The reasoning for this Court's explanation is as follows: "No person exists, nor is the plaintiffs ......................., even if a title trust is held by AA......, this is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance, except that "the title trust of the shares of this case to the plaintiffs" is deemed as "the title trust of the shares of this case is held by AA.", and therefore, it is also accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. Relevant statutes

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the court's explanation is accepted by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

C. Determination

1) Whether to recognize title trust

This Court's reasoning is as follows. Each "this Court" of the 5th, 5th, and 12th of the first instance court's ruling is "the court of first instance", and the 6th of the 11th of the 6th, "AAA," which is the actual owner, transferred the name of the shares in this case to the plaintiffs, the trustee," and "AA, which is the actual owner, shall be deemed to have transferred the name of the shares in this case to the plaintiffs," and the 6th to 7th of the 6th of the 13th of the 6th, 13th of the 7th of the 13th of the 7th of the 7th of the 7th of the 13th of the 13th of the 6th court ruling,

A) In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the following facts can be acknowledged in the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 7, 8, 12, 13, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5.

(1) AA established the instant company on February 23, 2005, as an electrical engineer qualified as an electrical engineer, for the purpose of the electrical construction business and the sales of electrical equipment and materials. At that time, Seoyoung acquired 10,000 shares out of total number of issued stocks, 8,000 shares in spouse BB, 2,000 shares in 2,00 shares in 20 shares in 20.

(2) On August 25, 2005, AA accepted 22,00 shares issued by the instant company with capital increase. On January 24, 2006, the Plaintiff acquired all shares from CCC and BB on February 11, 2009, and thereby became one shareholder holding 42,00 shares increased due to capital increase. On August 10, 2009, AA filed a divorce report with BB on August 10, 201. (3) On March 31, 201, AA entrusted Plaintiff 12,60 shares under the real name of 30% of the total number of issued shares, or Plaintiff FF with Plaintiff 12,60 shares issued, and the Plaintiff 2G was under a property division dispute with Plaintiff 10,000 shares, and the Plaintiff 2G was under the name of the trustee of the Plaintiff 10,000 shares, and the Plaintiff 2G was under the name of the Plaintiff 4G.

(5) On the other hand, the Plaintiffs were merely 20 billion won, 50 million won, 2010, 2011, 932 billion won, and 1.124 billion won, 2013, 2013, and 1.5 billion won, and 1.5 billion won, 200 million won, 200, 3000 won, and 40 billion won, 200,000 won, and 1.3 billion won, 2015, 2015, and 1.4 billion won, 200, 300,000 won, and 40,000 won, 200,000 won, and 1.00 won, 200,000,000 won and 1.00,000,000 won, and 3.0,000 won and 1.0,000,000 won.

(1) On July 24, 2001, Article 288 of the Commercial Act was amended by Act No. 6488 on July 24, 2001, and Article 288 of the Commercial Act did not limit the number of promoters necessary for the establishment of a stock company, but before the amendment, "not less than three promoters have to be required to establish a stock company." AA established the company in this case on February 23, 2005 and distributed shares by taking part in the spouse and wife and by taking part in the company as shareholders. If AA excludes the shares acquired by the spouse due to the aggravation of marital relationship for about two years from February 11, 2009, the nominal shareholders of the company in the name of the company in this case were always maintained two or more, and AA appears to have recovered the name of the company in this case and its legal issues related to the transfer of the shares, and subsequent to the amendment, AA has to have been aware of the shares in this case's name or more under the name of the company in title trust agreement.

이에 대하여 피고는 원고들의 주장을 인정할 수 없다고 하면서 이 사건 주식의 명의신탁 당시 주식회사의 주주를 2인 이상으로 유지해야 한다는 법률상 제한이 없었고, 이 사건 회사가 2009년경 @@은행 봉명동지점에서 2억 원을 대출받을 당시 AAA이 단독 주주로 되어 있는 주주명부를 대출서류로 제출한 점 등을 근거로 들고 있으나, 이 사건 회사가 1인 주주로 구성되어 있던 기간이 단기간이고, AAA은 혼인관계 파탄이라는 특수한 사정으로 인해 1인 주주로 되었는데, 이 사건 회사는 이와 같이 부득이하게 1인 주주로 되어 있던 기간 중에 자금 조달(대출)에 성공한 것일 뿐인 점, 법률에 정통하지 아니한 일개 전기기술자가 '1인 주주로 구성된 주식회사가 법률상 불가능한 것은 아니지만, 정상적인 상태에 있지 않은 회사이다'라고 인식하고,그러한 비정상적인 상태에서 조속히 벗어나고자 시도하였다면 이는 오히려 통상인의자연스러운 인식 및 행동으로 평가할 수 있는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 피고가 들고 있는 사정들만으로 이 사건 주식의 명의신탁이 1인 주주 상태에서 벗어나려는 이유가 아닌 조세 회피의 목적에서 이루어졌다고 보기는 어렵다. (2) 또한 일반적으로 명의신탁에 의해 회피될 수 있다고 거론되는 조세들의 경감 여부를 차례로 살펴보면, 아래에서 보는 바와 같이 이 사건 주식의 명의신탁으로 조세경감이 생기지 않았고, 명의신탁 당시 장래 조세경감의 결과가 발생할 수 있는 구체적인 사정도 존재하지 않는다고 할 것이다.

(A) The secondary tax liability of an oligopolistic shareholder is to impose the secondary tax liability on a person who actually exercises the rights to shares exceeding 50/100 of the total number of issued and outstanding shares of the relevant corporation, if it is deemed that a non-listed corporation, the main taxpayer of which is the oligopolistic shareholder, is unable to pay taxes in full (see Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes). AA was in the position of oligopolistic shareholder who owns all issued and outstanding shares before the title trust and is liable to pay taxes.

However, the instant company did not have any tax arrears since its establishment, and there was no fact that AA avoided secondary tax liability as an oligopolistic shareholder; it has much more assets than its liabilities; and there was no probability that AAA’s secondary tax liability may be established in light of its financial status at the time of the instant company’s title trust, which had been continuously making profits; and the same applies to the date when about five years have passed thereafter.

Furthermore, since AA owns 70% of the total number of issued and outstanding shares after title trust in its name, there was no change in the status of oligopolistic shareholders under tax law, and it seems that the tax authority could easily understand the remaining 30% shares of this case as the beneficial shareholder in relationship with AA, because the Plaintiffs, a title trustee, were related to AA.

따라서 이 사건 주식의 명의신탁으로 AAA의 제2차 납세의무가 회피 내지 경감된다고 할 수는 없다. (나) 종합소득세 이 사건 회사의 발행주식을 AAA이 모두 보유한 상태에서 이 사건 회사가 이익배당을 실시하는 경우 누진공제가 한 번만 적용되어 종합소득세가 산출되나, 이 사건 주식을 명의신탁으로 분산시킨 상태에서 이 사건 회사가 이익배당을 실시하면 AAA에게는 물론 명의수탁자에게도 누진공제가 적용되어 종합소득세가 산출되므로, AAA과 명의수탁자가 부담하는 종합소득세 총액은 명의신탁 전보다 누진공제액만큼 감소할 수 있으며, 명의수탁자인 원고들에게 다른 소득이 없다고 가정할 경우 그 최대액은 원고 FFF에 대한 명의신탁 당시가 연 1,490만 원이고, 원고 GGG에 대한 명의신탁 당시가 연2,390만 원이다 �구 소득세법(2012. 1. 1. 법률 제11146호로 일부개정되기 전의 것) 제55조 제1항 및 구 소득세법(2014. 1. 1. 법률 제12169호로 일부개정되기 전의 것) 제55조 제1항 참조 �. 그러나 이 사건 회사는 설립 이래 현재에 이르기까지 10년이 넘는 기간 동안 한 번도 이익배당을 실시한 적이 없어 AAA은 주식배당소득에 대한 누진적 종합소득세 부담을 회피한 사실이 없다. 또한 9억 원이 넘은 이익잉여금이 명의신탁 당시 이 사건 회사의 배당가능자원으로 누적되어 있기는 하였으나, 당시 주주에 대한 거액의 이익배당이 이루어질 것이라고 기대할 만한 구체적인 징후나 정황은 없었고, AAA이 그 이후 이익배당을 준비하거나 시도한 흔적도 발견되지 않는다. 오히려 이 사건 회사의 경영을 위해서 주식을 보유한 1인 주주인 AAA은 이익배당을 실시하지 않고도 보수를 받는 방법으로 경영상 기여에 대한 보상을 충분히 받을 수 있는 점, 이 사건 회사가 번거로운 절차를 거쳐 이익잉여금을 배당하더라도 주식의 가치가 그만큼 하락하여 AAA으로서는 이를 실시할 별다른 필요성이 없는 반면, 이익잉여금을 사내에 유보해 두면 결손 대비 및 사업확장 등 경영상 필요에 맞게 이를 사용함으로써 주식 가치를 효과적으로 유지 내지 상승시킬 수 있는 점 등에 비추어 명의신탁 당시 위 이익잉여금이 장차 주주에게 배당될 것을 기대하기는 어려웠을 것으로 보인다. 또한 설령 이 사건 회사가 이익배당을 실시하였다고 하더라도 사실상 경감될 수 있는 종합소득세는 연간 최대 1,490만 원 내지 2,390만 원 정도에 불과하고, 이는 명의신탁 시점으로부터 약 3년 만에 명의를 회복한 AAA이 실질적으로 부담해야 하는 원고들에 대한 이 사건 증여세액 합계 약 3억 1,000만 원에 비해 적은 금액인바, AAA이 단지 배당소득에 대한 종합소득세의 부담을 경감시킬 목적으로 거액의 증여세 부과 위험을 감수하였다고 보기는 어렵고, 더구나 그와 같은 목적이 있었다면 명의신탁이 쉽게 적발될 수 있는, 친족 명의를 빌리는 방법을 사용하지는 않았을 것으로 보인다.

Therefore, the burden of global income tax of AA cannot be reduced due to the title trust of the instant shares. (c) The main text of Article 7(3) of the Local Tax Act provides that “If AA becomes an oligopolistic shareholder by acquiring the shares of a corporation, the acquisition of the relevant corporation’s real estate, etc. shall be deemed to have been made.” According to this, AA bears the obligation to newly acquire the shares and pay the acquisition tax on the real estate, etc. owned by the relevant corporation. It is not a new trust of the shares acquired, but a trust of part of the shares of the instant corporation held in its own name from the past. Therefore, there is no problem of avoiding the burden of deemed acquisition tax. Furthermore, AA appears to have not been 42 years old at the time of the title trust with the Plaintiffs, and was not in a serious bottle, and thus, it appears that AA had no specific attempt to reduce the burden of inheritance tax due to the omission of the instant shares from the inherited property if AA died, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there was no possibility that the instant tax evasion purpose of the instant shares was made to reduce the title trust.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are accepted in its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, so the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked and the disposition of this case is revoked, and it is so decided as per Disposition.