The identity of the actual owner of the shares acquired under the name of his spouse

Since a juristic person whose husband is the actual owner has opened a securities account under the name of his spouse for the purpose of investing in stocks in the name of the actual owner, and paid the money to the securities account, the disposition of this case on the premise that the husband donated the money to his spouse is unlawful.

Article 45 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act: Estimated donation of funds for acquiring property

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

A. On September 7, 1999, the director of the Central Regional Tax Office of China investigated the change of shares against ○○○○○○○○○ Stock Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “○○○○○○○○”) and deposited cash of KRW 7.50 million in the securities account (Account Number:00-00-0000, hereinafter referred to as “instant securities account”) under the Plaintiff’s name, and subsequently confirmed that ○○○○○○ Stock Co., Ltd. was acquired with 28,100 shares issued by ○○○○○○○○○○ Stock Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “○○○”) and notified the Defendant of the data on taxation.

B. On May 18, 2004, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the foregoing taxation data, and on May 18, 2004, imposed a gift tax of KRW 52,000,000 on the gift of the instant amount (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Nos. 1, 2, 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

○○ Investment Development Co., Ltd. (○○○○ Investment Development Co., Ltd. was changed in succession to ○○○ and ○○○○○○○, Co., Ltd.; hereinafter referred to as “○○○ Investment Development”) whose representative director was the Plaintiff, deposited the instant money into the instant securities account for the purpose of investing in stocks by borrowing the Plaintiff’s name in the course of managing the investment fund. Despite the fact that ○○○ has used the instant money for stock investment, the Defendant’s disposition based on the premise that ○○ donated the said amount to the Plaintiff is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 45 (Presumption of Donation of Funds for Acquisition of Property, etc.) (1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (Presumption of Donation of Funds for Acquisition of Property, etc.) (1) Where it is difficult to recognize that a person acquired the property with his own ability considering his occupation, age, income, property status, etc. as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, the funds for acquisition of the

(2) Where it is difficult to recognize that a debtor has repaid his/her debts (including partial repayment; hereafter the same shall apply in this paragraph) by his/her own means in view of his/her occupation, age, income, property status, etc., as prescribed by Presidential Decree, the relevant repayment fund shall be presumed to have been donated to the relevant debtor at the time

(3) The provisions of paragraphs (1) and (2) shall not apply to cases where the relevant acquisition fund or repayment fund falls below the amount prescribed by Presidential Decree in consideration of occupation, age, income, property status, etc. and where sufficient vindication exists on the source of the relevant acquisition fund or repayment fund.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) The Plaintiff was recorded in the registry from April 29, 1999 to February 15, 200, as the representative director of ○○ Investment Development, but the actual operator of ○○ Investment Development was the husband of the Plaintiff, who was a director.

(2) On September 7, 1997, ○○○ Electronic Co., Ltd. was discounted by KRW 1 billion at the face value of ○○○ Electronic Co., Ltd.’s issuance (Internet, the recipient thereof).

(3) On September 7, 1999, a seed collection case, the head of ○○ Investment Development’s fund management department, deposited the instant money, which is part of the instant money, into the instant securities account, under the direction of ○○○○.

(4) The instant securities account had been opened by the employees of ○○ Investment Development Co., Ltd. and traded through the employees in charge or securities company. The ○○ Investment Development acquired shares in the name of several individuals in order to reduce the procedures for reporting the shares of another company to the financial authorities whenever the shares of the other company are acquired in excess of certain shares, and reported changes in shares in the name of ○○ Investment Development at once by adding them to ○○ Investment Development.

(5) The ○○ Securities Transaction Record Certificate (Evidence No. 7) states that the instant money deposited in the instant securities account was purchased from September 13, 1997 to September 21, 1997, and that ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 28,100 shares was released on September 27, 199. The investment securities statement (Evidence No. 8) of ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 28,390,00 won, including ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 28,100 shares. The sum of the investment securities investment securities is written in the balance sheet (Evidence No. 16) of 199 and 200 ○ ○ 00 won.

(6) Meanwhile, ○○○○’s shares 28,100 shares were combined at the ratio of 1:20 shares and increased to 56,200 shares. The ○○ Investment Development was deposited in the account in the name of ○○ Investment Development upon trading against October 26, 2001.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Gap evidence No. 11 through 14, Gap evidence No. 16, Eul evidence No. 4 through 9, testimony for seed collection of witness of the first instance court, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

In light of the following circumstances revealed in light of the aforementioned facts: (a) the Plaintiff appears not to participate in the securities transaction using the instant securities account; (b) the amount deposited into the instant securities account was partially deposited in the bill discount held by ○○ Investment Development; (c) the ○○ ○ ○ Invested Stocks purchased with the instant money are included in the ○ ○ Invested Development’s assets; and (d) the ○ ○ ○ ○ Invested Development offered part of the shares increased due to the consolidation of the said shares as collateral and sold them to the account in its own name for the purpose of investing in shares; and (c) the ○ ○ ○ Invested Development shall establish the instant securities account for the purpose of investing in shares in the name of the borrower and deposit the sales price into the instant securities account; and thus, the disposition based on the premise that the ○ ○ ○ Invested made a donation of the instant amount to the Plaintiff is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.