Suwon District Court 2012Guhap3744 ( November 02, 2012)

The payment of this case was not received as payment for stock disposal, but received as a donation;

The fact that there was no entry of a change of holders in relation to shares and that there was no circumstance to deem that there was a involvement in the payment of capital gains tax from the sale of shares, and each payment was donated not to be paid as the price for the disposal of shares to investors.

2012Nu3573 Revocation of imposition of gift tax, etc.

1.A 2.B

Head of Central Tax Office

Suwon District Court Decision 2012Guhap3744 Decided November 2, 2012

August 20, 2013

September 27, 2013

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The imposition of gift tax by the Defendant against the Plaintiffs on October 8, 2010 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's explanation concerning this case is based on Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act, except as described below in the part "......" part of the court's decision from 4.8 to 6.17 of the court's decision of the first instance.

2. Parts in height:

C. Determination

(1) Articles 2(1) and 4 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9916 of Jan. 1, 2010) provide that a donee who has acquired property without compensation due to another person's donation is liable to pay gift tax. Article 2(3) of the same Act provides that "donation" means a transfer (including transfer at a very low price) of tangible and intangible property without compensation to another person by direct or indirect means, or an increase in the value of another person's property by providing that the concept of donation is comprehensively defined.

In a case where there are special circumstances, such as: (a) the deposit in the name of a person recognized as a donor by the competent tax office is withdrawn and deposited in a deposit account, etc. in the name of the taxpayer, such deposit is presumed to have been donated to the taxpayer; and (b) the withdrawal of such deposit and the deposit in the name of the taxpayer are made for other purpose than donation (see Supreme Court Decision 9Du4082, Nov. 13, 2001).

(2) With respect to the instant case, the Plaintiffs’ respective payments received by the Plaintiffs are bound to be donated from DD, in full view of the following circumstances that are acknowledged as being comprehensively considered with the overall purport of the pleadings as to the part of Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 23 and 29 (including each number), as stated in the Evidence Nos. 2 through 5, as well as part of the testimony by the witness CCC, and each of the instant payments received by the Plaintiffs. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ assertion on a different premise is without merit.

① Since acquiring shares 1 and 2, it was registered as a shareholder in the register of shareholders of GG until they are sold, and there was no change in the ownership of shares in the future of the Plaintiffs. Moreover, there was no reason to deem that the capital gains tax from the sale of each of the above shares was reported and paid under the name of DD, and that the Plaintiff was involved in the payment of the said capital gains tax.

② 갑 제6 내지 10，14，15，28호증(각 가지번호 포함)의 각 일부 기재에 의하면, ㉠ 2005.1.10. 원고 AAA의 HH은행 계좌에서 IIII의 JJ은행 예금계좌로 OOOO원이 입금된 사실，㉡ 2005.6.20. 원고 BBB의 KK은행 예금계좌에서 소외 LLL의 예금계좌로 OOOO원이 입금된 사실，㉢ 위 LLL은 2010.12.14. 원고들에게 위 OOOO원은 2005년 초에 원고 AAA에게 대여한 돈을 원고 BBB 으로부터 수령한 것이다 라는 취지의 사실확인서를 작성하여 준 사실，㉣ 원고 BBB의 KK은행 예금계좌에서 2005.7.14. OOOO원，2005.8.4. 1，OOOO원이 DDD의 MM은행 예금계좌로 입금된 사실은 인정된다. 그러나 원고 BBB과 DDD은 부부지간으로 1999년 혼인한 이후 현재까지 수시로 예금계화를 통한 금전거래가 이루어져 왔고，특히 2005년 1월경부터 2006년 6월경까지 DDD이 원고 BBB의 예금계좌로 송금한 금액은 OOOO원에 이르는 반면，같은기간 중 원고 BBB이 DDD 에게 송금한 금액은 OOOO원에 불과하여 오히려 DDD이 원고 BBB에게 OOOO원을 초과하여 송금한 사실이 확인되는 점， 원고 BBB과 DDD이 2006.1.6.경부터 2010.11.1.경까지 원고 AAA의 예금계좌로 송금한 금액의 합계가 약 OOOO원 이상에 이르는 점 등에 비추어 보면 앞서 인정한 사실만으로는 원고들이 DDD의 제1주식 및 제2주식 취득과 관련하여 그 주장과 같은 액수의 자금을 투자하였다고 보기 어렵다.

③ The Plaintiffs asserted that DDR invested the acquisition fund at the time of the acquisition of shares 1 and 2 and acquired shares equivalent to the investment ratio. However, DD could not find any circumstances to deem that DD had exercised its shareholder rights, such as the right to claim dividends, voting rights, and shareholder proposal rights, for several years until it was sold after it acquired each of the above shares. Furthermore, DD could have fully paid the acquisition fund of each of the above shares even without financial support of the Plaintiffs.

④ The Plaintiffs asserted that their shares in shares in the first and second shares are nominally held in D for convenience. However, in order to reverse the presumption that a person registered as a shareholder in the register of shareholders is presumed to be a shareholder of the company, the Plaintiffs have the burden of proof on the part of denying their shareholders' rights, and in order to assert that there is a separate shareholder in the name of the shareholder in the register of shareholders, and that there is a separate shareholder in the name of the second and second shares, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs alone is insufficient to acknowledge the above title trust, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da27755, Sept. 6, 2007).

⑤ 원고들은，DDD이 소유하고 있던 GGG 주식을 처분해서 IIII로부터의 차용금을 변제할 것인지 여부 및 GGG 주식매수선택권을 행사할 것인지 여부를 결정할 시기인 2005. 1. 내지 8. 당시 GGG이 적자를 지속하고 위 회사의 전망이 여전히 불투명해서 직원 다수가 GGG 주식이나 주식매수선택권을 포기하면서 위 회사에서 퇴직하는 상황이어서 DDD 역시 IIII로부터의 차용금을 변제하지 않는 대신 GGG 주식을 포기하면서 IIII에서 퇴직할 것을 고려하면서 주식매수선택권을 행사할 생각이 없었다고 주장한다. 그러나 갑 제16 내지 18호증의 각 기재 및 당심 증인 CCC의 증언만으로는 이를 인정하기에 부족하고 탈리 이를 인정할 만한 증거가 없는 반면， 오히려 갑 제38，42호증，을 제6호증의 1 내지 7의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 인정할 수 있는 다음과 같은 사실，즉 ㉠ GGG은 2004년에 OOOO원의 당기순이익을 기록하였던 사실，㉡ GGG의 근로소득현황은 2003년에 OOOO원이었 는데，2004년에 OOOO원으로 전년 대비 약 1.7배 증가하였고，2005년에는 OOOO원으로 전년 대비 약 5.3배 증가하였던 사실，㉢ GGG의 1일 거래건수는 2004년 들어 4，000건을 넘어섰는데，2004년 말경에는 10，000건을 돌파하는 등 거래액이 급격한 증가세를 보였던 사실，㉣ GGG이 2004.11. 세계적 투자회사인 미국 NNNN로부터 OOOO원을 투자 유치하는 등 GGG의 향후 전망이 매우 좋았다는 객관적 사실들과 배치될 뿐만 아니라， DDD이 그 당시 IIII에 근무하고 있어서 이러한 사실을 잘 알고 있었을 것임에도 자신이 소유한 GGG 주식을 포기하고 주식매수선택권을 행사하지 않기로 하였다는 것도 경험칙상 쉽게 납득이 가지 않는다.

⑥ 원고들은，DDD 명의의 GGG 주식에 관한 DDD의 지분은 43.4%，원고 BBB의 지분은 42.4%， 원고 AAA의 지분은 13.8%로서，주식을 매각하면 그때그때 지분 비율에 따라 원고들에게 배분하였으며，특히 원고 AAA 몫은 2009.4.23.에 끝전까지 맞춰 정산하여 지급하였다고 주장한다. 그러나 갑 제12，14호증의 각 기재에 의하면 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정，즉 ㉠ 2007.1.12.부터 같은 해 5.30.까지의 주식 매각대금이 합계 OOOO원인데，그 무렵 원고 AAA에게 배분된 금원이 합계 OOOO원으로 매각대금의 약 25%에 이르러 원고들 주장의 지분율과 부합하지 않는 점，㉡ 2008.1.2.부터 같은 해 8.19.까지의 주식 매각대금이 합계 OOOO원인데，그 무렵 원고 AAA에게 배분된 금원이 합계 OOOO원으로 매각대금의 약 5%에 불과하여 역시 원고들 주장의 지분율과 일치하지 않는점，㉢ 게다가 원고 AAA의 계좌로 입금된 금원들은 DDD 계좌뿐만 아니라 원고 BBB의 계좌에서도 이체되어 원고 AAA과 DDD 및 원고 BBB 간의 다른 금융거래와 명확히 구분되지 않는 점에 비추어 볼 때，이 사건 지급금을 원고들의 지분율에 따른 투자금의 분배로 보기 어렵다.

7) Plaintiff BB, and the sales price of the shares distributed to Plaintiff BB, who is the legal spouse of DD, shall not be deemed to be the sole ownership of DD but the common property acquired through the joint efforts of DD's community life. However, the instant disposition based on the premise that the sales price of the shares is the sole ownership of DD, is unlawful. However, there is no evidence to support that the first and second shares of this case owned by DD are the common property of the couple acquired through the joint efforts of DD couple, and therefore, Plaintiff BB's above assertion cannot be accepted.

(3) Therefore, the Defendant’s respective dispositions imposing the gift tax on the Plaintiffs on deeming that the Plaintiffs received the donation of each of the instant payments from DD are lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims seeking revocation of each of the dispositions of this case are dismissed without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is justified with this conclusion, and all appeals of the plaintiffs are dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.