A. Whether the transfer of a title to shares under Article 32-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283, Dec. 31, 1990) has the effect of transferring a title to shares solely on the statement in the depositors' account book of the substitute settlement company (negative)

B. Whether Article 32-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act shall apply where the actual owner unilaterally registers, etc. in the name of the nominal owner who is unaware of the nominal owner (negative)

A. The provisions of Article 174-3(1) and (2) of the Securities and Exchange Act are to regulate the relations between a customer’s securities company or a substitute settlement company and to regulate the relations with the issuing company of the customer. In full view of the fact that Article 174-8(1) and (2) of the same Act recognizes the validity of a transfer of shares on the basis of the notification of the alternative settlement company and the entry of the issuing company’s list of shareholders, it cannot be recognized as having the same effect as a transfer of shares solely with an entry made in the customer account book of the securities company or the depositors account book of the alternative settlement company. Thus, if shares are purchased under the name of another person, the mere entry made in the above depositors account book cannot be said to have the validity of a transfer of shares as required by Article 32-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283, Dec. 31

B. The provisions of Article 32-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act shall apply only where the actual owner and the nominal owner are different in the property requiring registration, etc., and where the actual owner unilaterally completes registration, etc. without such agreement, without the knowledge of the nominal owner.

(a) Article 32-2(1)(a) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283, Dec. 31, 1990); Article 174-3(1) and (2), and Article 174-8(1) and (2) of the Securities and Exchange Act

B. Supreme Court Decision 88Nu27 delivered on October 11, 1988 (Gong1988, 1418) 89Nu7832 delivered on April 24, 1990 (Gong190, 1177) 91Nu1943 delivered on May 28, 1991 (Gong191, 1816)

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

The director of the tax office

Gwangju High Court Decision 90Gu1600 delivered on April 18, 1991

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the claim that the provisions of Article 32-2 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283, Dec. 31, 1990) cannot be applied since the non-party 1 purchased shares at the time of original adjudication using the plaintiff's name, that is, the non-party 1's attorney's purchase of shares using the plaintiff's name, but the transfer of the company's name was not made, and thus, the provisions of Article 32-2 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283, Dec. 31, 1990) cannot be applied. According to the provisions of Article 174-3 (1) and (2), Article 174-8 (1) and (2) of the same Act, and Article 10

However, the provisions of Article 174-3 (1) and (2) of the Securities and Exchange Act only recognize the same effect as the possession or issuance of share certificates by the entry in the customer account book of the securities company or the customer account book of the substitute settlement company in consideration of the characteristics of securities transaction taking the method of replacing actual movement in the account book while keeping stocks in a mixed and collective transaction through a securities company through a securities company in the securities market. In addition, it cannot be seen as a provision for regulating relations with the issuing company of customers for regulating customer securities companies or substitute settlement company, and Article 174-8 (1) and (2) of the above Act merely provides that the issuing company notified of the name, address, number and type of shares as of the closing date of the register of shareholders shall have the same effect as that of beneficial shareholders on the register of shareholders, and that the above entry on the register of beneficial shareholders shall not have the same effect as that of beneficial shareholders and shall not have the same effect as the entry on the register of beneficial shareholders and shall not have the same effect as that of the issuing company or transfer account book.

Therefore, the court below did not consider the notification of beneficial shareholders to the issuing company of the alternative settlement company under the above Act or the procedure of entry, etc. in the register of beneficial shareholders of the issuing company with respect to the stocks in its holding, but did not merely examine whether the procedure of entry, etc. in the register of beneficial shareholders was made, and held that the transfer of ownership of stocks required by Article 32-2 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act has the effect of entry in the above list of beneficial shareholders. The judgment below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to each of the above Articles

2. Article 32-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act applies only where the difference between the actual owner and the nominal owner is based on the agreement or communication among them with respect to the property requiring registration, etc., and where the actual owner unilaterally completes registration, etc. without such agreement, it shall not be applicable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 88Nu27, Oct. 11, 198; 89Nu7832, Apr. 24, 1990).

Therefore, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion as to the above provision on the ground that the above deemed donation provision is applied regardless of the existence of agreement or communication between the actual owner and the nominal owner. It erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the above provision, which led to the failure to exhaust all necessary deliberations as to the existence of the above agreement, etc., and therefore, the argument

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench, since the judgment of the court below which does not require any judgment on

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)