early 2010west2025 ( December 29, 2010)

The ownership of stocks for the purpose of transfer is not deemed donated.

Even if the ownership of shares for the purpose of transfer is transferred from the obligor to the obligee, the obligee is not holding ownership of the shares, but merely holding a security right. Therefore, the disposition of imposition is unlawful since there is no room to apply the provision on the constructive gift of title trust.

2011Guhap7779 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

IsaA

○ Head of tax office

June 22, 201

July 20, 201

1. The Defendant’s imposition of gift tax of KRW 227,656,930 against the Plaintiff on April 13, 2010 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From August 25, 2009 to December 1, 2009, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office entered into an agreement between △△△△△ (hereinafter referred to as the “△△△△△△△△”) to raise funds to participate in the above capital increase, and △△△△△△△△△△ (hereinafter referred to as the “△△△△△△△△△”) discovered funds from 11 November 1, 200, including the Plaintiff’s wife, △△△△△, 600 shares in the name of 4,160 won per share in the process of conducting the corporate tax integration. In the process of acquiring new shares in an amount equivalent to 4,160 shares in the name of △△△△, the major shareholder of the non-party company (hereinafter referred to as the “△△△△”), △△△△△, the Plaintiff’s △△ and other △△, the total investors designated 11,168,700 shares and 4000 shares.68

B. Accordingly, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office, while participating in the above capital increase with new shares, deemed that the above new shares were held in title by being allocated 405,600 won to the plaintiff et al. in the name of a third party such as the plaintiff et al., and applied the provision on the constructive gift of title trust under Article 45-2 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8828 of Dec. 31, 2007; hereinafter referred to as the "former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act"), and applied the provision on the constructive gift of title trust under Article 45-2 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8828 of Dec. 31, 2007; hereinafter referred to as the "former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act"), calculated the amount calculated by multiplying the number of shares issued by the plaintiff et al. as the value of donated shares (in the case of the plaintiff, the value of donated shares is 663,367,2000 won.

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on May 27, 2010, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the decision on December 29, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff’s new shares issued by the Plaintiff in the name of the Plaintiff for the purpose of lending the new shares subscription fund to the non-party company’s participation in the capital increase issued by the non-party company to △△△ for the purpose of securing the return of the loan. However, without any grounds, without any grounds, the Plaintiff’s actual transaction of the loan, deemed that △△ was allocated only the name of the new shares to be received by △△ pursuant to the title trust agreement concluded between the Plaintiff and △△ without any grounds, and thus, the Defendant’s disposition imposing the gift tax on the Plaintiff by applying the provision on the deemed donation of the title trust under Article 45-2(1)

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) Around December 2005, the non-party company attempted to implement the new shares equivalent to 477,600 shares per share by the third party allocation method; the non-party company's major shareholder of the non-party company entered into an agreement with △△△△△ on the condition that △△ will pay 4% interest per month between △△△ and △△△ in order to raise funds to participate in the above new shares offering on December 1, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the "agreement on the raising of funds in this case"). The main contents of the agreement on the raising of funds are as follows.

2) After December 8, 2005, △△△△ entered into an investment agreement (hereinafter “instant investment agreement”) with 11 fund investors, including OA, the Plaintiff’s wife, on condition that 4% interest is paid per month between the fund investors and 1,687,296,000 won under the instant investment agreement. The main contents of the said investment agreement (Evidence A No. 4) are as follows.

3) The 11 fund investors, including OA, concluded the instant investment agreement with △△△, and raised a total of KRW 1,687,296,000 with the subscription fund for new shares, and △△△ was issued with the amount equivalent to 7% of the subscription fund for new shares raised from △△ pursuant to the instant financing agreement and the security amounting to 338,00,000 won, and issued cashier’s checks equivalent to 4% of the subscription fund for new shares raised with interest pursuant to the instant investment agreement, and issued the said cashier’s checks to the fund investors.

4)On the other hand, Luxembourg participated in the subscription fund of 1,687,296,00 won for new shares raised pursuant to the instant financing agreement and the instant investment agreement and allocated 405,600 shares out of 47,600 shares for new shares issued by the non-party company to be issued by the non-party company through the offering of new shares on December 9, 2005 under the name of the fund investors or a third party designated by it, the detailed details are as follows.

5) After that, the 11 fund investors, including OA, sold 405,60 new shares allocated five times from December 23, 2005 to February 1, 2006 to KRW 7,425,07,296,00 of the investment principal, after deducting KRW 1,687,296,00 of the remaining sales amount from KRW 5,737,782,440 of the investment principal, and KRW 338,00,00 of the daily cashier's checks offered as security, and △△△△ returned them to △△ as they are,.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including a natural disaster), the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) In order to establish a deemed donation of a title trust on the shares under the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, there is an agreement between a truster and a trustee who are the parties to the title trust to establish a title trust relationship. The title trust should be duly established, and the actual owners of the shares and the nominal owner are different, and transfer should be made in the name of the title trustee on the register of shareholders, and the purpose of tax avoidance is required. In addition, even if the title of the shares owned for the purpose of transfer is transferred from the debtor to the creditor, it is nothing more than that the creditor holds the ownership of the shares, but it is nothing more than that of the security right, so there is no room to apply the provision on deemed donation of a title trust under Article 45-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 86Nu

2) 위 법리에 비추어 이 사건에 관하여 보건대, 앞서 인정한 사실관계에 앞서 든 증거들 및 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ① △△아는 □□T와 사이에 이 사건 자금조달약정을 체결하면서 작성한 자금조달약정서에 '△△아가 조달한 투자원리금을 반환받을 때까지 □□T로부터 투자금 대비 20% 상당의 □□T 발행 자기앞수표를 교부받아 보관하고(제2조 제5항, 제5조 제2항), 유상증자 참여로 취득할 신주도 △△아 명의로 배정받아 △△아가 보관하되 그 신주에 대한 권리 및 신주를 담보로 보관하고 있는 중에 발생하는 신주인수권은 □□T에게 있으며(제6조 제11항), △△아 명의로 배정받은 신주와 담보로 제공받은 자기앞수표의 시가 총액이 △△아가 조달한 투자금의 150% 이하가 될 경우 □□T는 △△아에게 추가 담보를 제공하고 □□T가 추가 담보를 제공하지 않을 경우 신주와 자기앞수표를 처분하여 투자원리금에 충당할 수 있도록 하는 권리를 △△아에게 부여한다(제6조 제5항)'는 취지의 내용을 명시하였는바, 이에 따르면 △△아는 □□T와 이 사건 자금조달약정을 체결하면서 투자원리금의 반환을 담보하기 위하여 □□T로부터 자기 앞 수표를 교부받는 외 에 유상증자 참여로 배정받을 신주도 △△아 명의로 배정받아 이를 보관하기로 약정한 것으로 보이는 점, ② 이후 △△아가 이 사건 자금조달약정에 따라 오AA 등 11명의 자금투자자들을 모집하고 이들과 사이에 이 사건 투자약정을 체결하면서 작성한 투자약정서에도 '△△아는 자금투자자들의 투자원리금을 담보하기 위하여 자금투자자들에게 투자금 대비 20% 상당의 자기앞수표를 교부하고(제2조), △△아가 자금투자자들의 투자금을 전액 상환하였을 경우 자금투자자들은 주식 및 담보물건을 반환하기로 한다(제8조)'는 취지의 내용을 명시하였는바, 이에 따르면 △△아는 자금투자자들과 이 사건 투자약정을 체결하면서 □□T로부터 부여받은 위 담보 권한과 대체로 동일한 내용의 권한을 자금투자자들에게 재차 부여한 것으로 보이는 점,③ 실제로 오AA 등 자금투자자들은 이 사건 투자 약정에 따라 △△아로부터 약정 선이자를 지급받고 1억 원 내지 2억 원 내외의 자금을 투자한 후 신주를 그들 또는 그들이 지정하는 제3자 명의로 배정받아 이를 보관하다가 □□T의 매도 지사에 따라 신주를 매도하고 투자원금을 공제한 나머지 매도대금을 전액 △△아에게 반환하였고, △△아 또한 이 사건 자금조달약정에 따라 자금투자자들을 모집하여 □□T로부터 약정 선이자 및 용역수수료를 교부받은 후 자금투자자들로부터 받은 신주매도대금을 □□T에게 그대로 반환한 점,④ 당시 △△아의 대표였던 최BB는 이 사건과 관련하여 세무조사를 받으면서 '△△아는 □□T와 자금투자자들 사이를 중개 하는 역할을 담당하였는데, 이 사건 유상증자로 취득한 신주의 실질적인 소유권은 □□T에 있었으나, 다만 투자금의 반환을 담보할 목적으로 자금투자자들이 그들 명의로 유상증자 대금을 납입하여 신주를 배정받게 된 것이며, 일부 자금투자자들이 타인 명의로 유상증자대금을 납입한 이유는 잘 모르겠다'는 취지로 진술하였고, 당시 실무를 담당하였던 △△아의 직원 김경원도 '자금투자자들은 차용금에 대한 담보로서 신주를 보관한 것이고, 신주에 대한 실질적인 소유권은 □□T에 있었다'는 취지로 진술한 점, ⑤ 반면에 □□T 또는 △△아와 자금투자자들 사이에 단지 주식의 소유 명의만을 신탁할 수 있을 정도의 인적 신뢰관계가 형성되어 있었다고 보이지도 않고, 이들 사이에 소외 회사 발행의 신주를 명의신탁하기로 하는 약정이 있었다고 볼 만한 근거자료가 전혀 제출된바 없는 점,⑥ 한편 주식에 질권을 설정함으로써 주식을 담보목적물로 할 수는 있으나, 주식의 명의자를 담보권자로 이전시키는 양도담보의 방법으로 담보권을 설정하는 것이 담보권 확보 및 회수에 훨씬 더 용이한 측면이 있으므로, 오히려 담보권자의 입장에서 볼 때 질권 보다는 양도담보를 설정할 유인이 더 크다고 보이는 점, ⑦ 채무자가 채무의 변제를 담보하기 위하여 자산을 양도하는 계약을 체결한 경우에는 소득세법상으로도 양도로 보지 아니하는 경우에 해당하는 점(소득세법 시행령 제151조 참조) 등을 종합하여 보면, 위 주식의 실제 소유자인 □□T와 명의자인 원고가 다르더라도 그것만으로 □□T가 원고에게 양도담보권이 아닌 소유권을 명의신탁 하였다고 볼 수는 없고, 오히려 자금투자자 중 1명인 오AA은 단지 형식적으로 주식의 소유 권한만을 이전받는 명의신탁 목적이 아닌 투자원리금의 반환을 담보하기 위한 양도담보 목적으로 원고 명의로 소외 회사 발행의 신주 40,800주를 배정받았다고 봄이 상당하므로, 이에 대하여는 구 상속세및증여세법 제45조의2 제1항 소정의 명의신탁의 증여의제 규정이 적용될 수 없다(가사 위 주식에 대한 실제 소유자인 □□T와 명의자인 원고가 다른 것이 구 상속세및증여세법 제45조의2 제1항 소정의 "권리의 이전이나 그 행사에 등기 등을 요하는 재산에 있어서 실제 소유자와 명의자가 다른 경우"에 해당하여 위 규정에 따라 명의자인 원고가 실제소유자인 □□T로부터 이를 증여받은 것으로 본다고 하더라도, 위에서 본 바와 같은 실제 소유자와 명의자가 다른 경위 및 주식 취득 이후의 실제 처분과정 등에 비추어 조세회피와 상관없는 뚜렷한 목적이 있었던 이상, 조세회피의 목적 없이 원고의 명의로 위 주식의 명의개서를 한 경우에 해당한다).

3) Furthermore, even if A.A. was allocated new shares for the purpose of transfer as above, under the name of the Plaintiff, it ultimately led to the Plaintiff’s title trust. However, even in the case of title trust, whether the provision on the constructive gift of title trust under Article 45-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act can be applied to the case where the ownership of shares for the purpose of transfer is held in title trust. However, even if the ownership of shares for the purpose of transfer is held in the future of the obligee, the obligee is merely holding the above shares, not the ownership of the above shares, but the security right. Thus, even if the ownership of the shares is held in title trust, it seems that the above legal principle can still be applied as it is because the ownership does not change even if the right of transfer is held in title trust. ② The legislative purpose of Article 45-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is to effectively prevent tax avoidance through the title trust system, and thus, it is difficult for the Plaintiff to interpret the above provision on the constructive gift of title trust, including the above provision.

4) Accordingly, the defendant's disposition of this case, based on the premise that △△ was the title trust of 40,800 shares issued by the non-party company to the plaintiff, is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.