Cho Jae-2013-China-3071 ( October 10, 2013)

Whether the actual owner of the instant account is the father of the Plaintiff

The instant account is an account opened and managed by the Plaintiff’s father by borrowing the Plaintiff’s name. It is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff’s father was the Plaintiff’s father, and that the Plaintiff’s father donated the instant money to the Plaintiff on November 22, 2010.

Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2013Guhap62275

Park ○

○ Head of tax office

2014.028

2014.04.04

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 1,021,986,390 against the Plaintiff on August 22, 2012 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 1) 원고는 2010. 11. 22. 오빠인 박□□, 동생인 박△△과, 원고 명의의 ♧♧투자증권(◎◎증권 주식회사가 ☆☆증권 주식회사, ☆☆투자증권 주식회사를 거쳐 ♧♧투자증권 주식회사로 변경되었다) 계좌(계좌번호 : 2▢▢-01-46▢▢▢▢, 이하 위 계좌를 포함한 일련의 계좌를 '이 사건 계좌'라 한다)에 보유하고 있던 현금 및 채권 합계 9,204,663,943원 중 3,442,000,000원을 각각 박□□와 박△△에게 증여한다는 내용의 증여계약서를 작성하였다. 이후 박□□와 박△△은 2010. 11. 22. 원고로부터 3,453,140,013원과 3,446,044,226원을 각 증여받았음을 이유로 2011. 2. 28. 증여세 1,137,663,006원과 1,134,469,902원을 각 신고・납부하였다.

2) On March 16, 201, the Plaintiff, △△△△△, the father of △△△△△, died.

B. As a result of the inheritance tax investigation on △△△, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, as the real owner of the account of this case on November 22, 2010, ○○○○○○○○○. The Plaintiff was a donation to △△△△△△, not by the Plaintiff, but by the Plaintiff. 2,305,479,704 won (i.e., KRW 9,204,63,63,943 - 3,453,1453,140,140,013- 3,446,04,226 won, hereinafter referred to as “the instant taxation data”) deemed that △△△△△ was a donation to the Plaintiff, and on the ground that the gift tax reported and paid by △△△△△△△△△△△△△ was revoked on the ground that the donor was a donation, and on the ground that △△△△△△△△, the donor was a donation to the Defendant.

C. Accordingly, on August 22, 2012, the Defendant decided and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 1,021,986,390 as gift tax (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On November 27, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an objection and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on June 7, 2013, but was dismissed on September 10, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7, 10 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), each statement of evidence Nos. 1 and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) 1985년 대학교 4학년에 재학 중이던 원고는 졸업하자마자 당시 만나고 있던 사람과 결혼하기로 하고 준비 중에 있었다. 이에 박◇◇은 1985. 6. 20. 결혼자금에 사용하라고 하면서 4,000만 원을 원고 명의의 ◎◎증권 계좌로 이체하여 주었다. 당시 원고의 남자친구가 결혼과 동시에 미국 유학을 고려하고 있었기 때문에 결혼 날짜를 쉽게 정하지 못하고 있었데, 증권회사에서 근무하여 금융 관련 지식이 많았던 박◇◇은 원고에게 4,000만 원을 일단 우량주식에 투자하였다가 결혼식을 올리고 신혼집을 구하면 주식을 팔아 신혼살림을 마련하라고 하면서 ◆◆전자 주식 등을 추천하였고, 원고는 박◇◇의 조언에 따라 ◆◆전자 주식 등을 매수하였다. 그런데 원고는 1986. 10. 결혼을 하면서 2년 6개월 과정으로 유학을 가는 남편을 따라 해외로 가게 되어 신혼살림을 마련할 필요가 없게 됨에 따라 위 주식을 그대로 보유하기로 결정하였다. 이후 원고는 1989. 6. 4. 남편과 함께 한국으로 돌아왔는데 남편이 살림을 마련하였을 뿐만 아니라 주식 가치가 기대 이상으로 상승하였고, 여유자금도 있었기 때문에 굳이 보유하고 있던 주식을 매각할 이유가 없었다. 그래서 원고는 1985년에 매입한 ◆◆전자 주식등을 그대로 보유하다가 1995년 약 27억 원에 매각한 후 이를 5년 만기 채권에 투자하였고, 박◇◇의 조언에 따라 우량주식 및 채권에 장기적으로 투자하였다. 이러한 사정에 1993년 이후 금융실명제가 시행되면서 금융기관에 계좌를 개설하기 위해서는 명의자의 신분증이 필요했고, 이러한 실명확인을 거친 계좌는 명의자를 실소유자로 보아야 하는 점, 박◇◇이 이 사건 계좌에서 자금을 인출하여 사용하는 등 권리행사를 한 사실이 없는 점, 원고가 이 사건 계좌에서 발생한 이자소득 및 배당소득에 대해 소득세를 신고・납부한 점, 「상속세 및 증여세법」(이하 '상속세및증여세법'이라 한다) 제45조 제4항은 「금융실명거래 및 비밀보장에 관한 법률」 제3조에 따라 실명이 확인된 계좌에 보유하고 있는 재산은 명의자가 그 재산을 취득한 것으로 추정한다고 규정하고 있는 점 등을 종합하면, 이 사건 계좌 및 금원의 소유자는 원고이다.

2) Even if the owner of the instant account, even though he/she was Park Jong-chul, at the time of November 22, 2010, he/she did not express his/her intent to donate the instant money to the Plaintiff, and the instant money remains in the instant account as it remains in the account, so it cannot be deemed that Park Jong-tae donated the instant money to the Plaintiff on November 22, 2010.

3) Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) 이 사건 계좌는 1985. 6. 20. ◎◎증권 을지로지점에서 원고 명의로 개설된 후(계좌번호 : 10☏☏☏☏) 박◇◇으로부터 4,000만 원이 입금되어 ◆◆전자 주식70,058주, ▲▲▲▲제련 주식 15,000주을 취득하였고, 이후 여러 차례에 걸쳐 계좌번호가 변경되고 운용자산(주식/채권)별로 계좌가 분할되었다가 ♧♧투자증권 종합관리계좌로 통합되었는데, 주로 ◆◆전자 주식, 국민주택채권과 같은 국채에 투자하는 것으로 운용되었고, 2010. 11. 22. 현재 9,204,663,943원으로 증식되었다.

2) ◎◎증권에서 1991. 5. 25. 작성된 '위탁자계좌관리대장'(을 제2호증)에 의하면,박◇◇의 처로서 원고의 어머니인 김◍◍, 박□□, 원고, 박◇◇ 명의의 계좌가 각 개설되었는데, 필적이 모두 동일할 뿐만 아니라 김◍◍, 박□□, 원고 명의의 계좌의 번호가 1◉◉◉◉5, 1◉◉◉◉6, 1◉◉◉◉7로 차례로 연결되어 있다(박◇◇ 명의의 계좌의 번호는1◉◉◉◉6이다). 또한, 당시 원고의 주민등록상 주소지는 '서울 ○○구 ○동 18-1 ○○아파트 200동 206호'였는데, 원고의 위탁자계좌관리대장에는 원고의 주소지가 박◇◇의 주민등록상 주소지인 '부산 ○구 ○동 ○○○○ 311동 1203호'로 기재되어 있다(김◍◍, 박□□도 원고와 동일하게 주소지가 '부산 ○구 ○○동 ○○○○ 311동 1203호'로 기재되어 있다).

3) On September 25, 1995, after the implementation of the Real Name Financial System for Real Name Financial Transactions, the seals affixed on the application for subscription to savings of securities (stocks) and the confirmation document (Evidence No. 4) prepared by the Plaintiff’s account (Account Number: 00-70-2100) on September 25, 1995 are the same as the seals affixed on the account management ledger of the truster.

4) 원고가 2010. 11. 17. 직접 개설한 ♧♧투자증권 계좌(계좌번호 : ○○○-01-46▢▢▢▢)의 '계좌개설 신청서'(을 제5호증)는 원고 명의의 위탁자계좌관리대장, '증권(주식) 저축 가입신청서 및 대상자 확인서'와 그 필적이 다를 뿐만 아니라 날인된 도장이 다르다(위 '계좌개설 신청서'에 날인된 도장은 원고와 박□□, 박△△ 사이에 작성된 증여계약서에 날인된 도장과 동일하다).

5) 이 사건 계좌 중 하나인 계좌번호 ○○○-01-12◉◉◉◉의 계좌에서 2005. 4. 14. ◆◆전자 주식을 계좌번호 0★★-01-21★★★★의 계좌로 대체출금할 때 작성된 대체전표(을제6호증)는 원고가 직접 개설한 위 ♧♧투자증권 계좌의 '계좌개설 신청서'와 필적이 다르다.

6) On July 23, 2007, the instant account was opened with the Plaintiff’s other accounts, with the exclusion of KRW 27,703,335,00 from cash deposit transactions. However, on December 27, 2010, KRW 280,000 per month from January 27, 2011 to November 23, 201, each of which was deposited with KRW 280,000,000,000,000,000 from the Plaintiff’s other accounts, and each of which was transferred to the Plaintiff’s other accounts on July 23, 2007. Meanwhile, on July 23, 2007, KRW 27,703,735,7037,700,000,000 from the instant account was remitted to the Plaintiff’s other accounts, and KRW 270,000,000,00 from the following day.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the account in this case was opened and managed in the name of the Plaintiff by Park Jong-chul, and that the owner of the account in this case and the money was the owner of the account in which Park Jong-young borrowed the name of the Plaintiff, and that the account in this case was donated the money in this case to the Plaintiff on November 22, 2010. The evidence or circumstance presented by the Plaintiff is insufficient to reverse the recognition. Accordingly, the instant disposition is lawful.

① At the time of June 20, 1985 when the account of this case was opened, the Plaintiff appears to have not earned any specific income from the university students of 24 years of age. In addition, the Plaintiff asserted that Park Jong-myeon used it as a marriage fund on June 20, 1985, and that he transferred KRW 40 million to the account of this case. However, at that time, 40 million was a large amount of money to the extent that it could purchase a house.

② 이 사건 계좌 중 하나인 계좌번호 12◉◉◉◉의 계좌는 1991. 5. 25. 김◍◍, 박□□, 박◇◇ 명의의 계좌와 동시에 개설되었을 뿐만 아니라 원고, 김◍◍, 박□□의 위탁자계좌관리대장의 필적이 박◇◇의 위탁자계좌관리대장의 필적과 동일한 점, 당시 원고의 주민등록상 주소지는 '서울 ○○구 ○동 18-1 ○○아파트 200동 206호'였음에도 원고의 위탁자계좌관리대장에 주소지가 박◇◇의 주민등록상 주소지인 '부산 ○구 ○○동 ○○○○ 311동 1203호'로 기재되어 있는 점에 비추어 보면, 원고 명의의 계좌번호 12◉◉◉◉의 계좌는 1991. 5. 25. 김◍◍, 박□□ 명의의 계좌와 함께 박◇◇에 의해 개설된 것으로 보인다.

③ 원고가 2010. 11. 17. 직접 ♧♧투자증권 계좌(계좌번호 : ○○○-01-46▢▢▢▢)를 개설하면서 작성한 '계좌개설 신청서'의 필적, 도장은 원고 명의의 계좌가 개설되거나 주식이 대체출금될 때 작성된 위탁자계좌관리대장, '증권(주식) 저축 가입신청서 및 대상자 확인서', 대체전표의 필적, 도장과 다르다(이에 대해 원고는 박◇◇이 원고를 대리 또는 대행하거나 원고로부터 위임을 받아 이 사건 계좌 중 일부를 개설하였다는 취지로 주장하나, 이를 인정할 증거가 없다).

④ On July 23, 2007, the instant account was transferred in KRW 27,703,335 to another account of the Plaintiff, and there was no cash deposit and withdrawal transaction by the Plaintiff before December 27, 2010. Moreover, on July 23, 2007, the instant account was transferred to the Plaintiff’s other account as part of KRW 27,703,335, which was transferred to the Plaintiff’s 27,703,335 on the same day.

⑤ According to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff received a donation of KRW 40,00,000 from Park Jong-dong, who invested in shares and bonds for about 25 years, and increased the amount of KRW 9,204,663,943, which was approximately KRW 230,00,000,000, which was first donated, to 3,453,140,013, and KRW 3,446,04,226, among them, donated approximately KRW 1/3,00,00 to Park Jong-dong and Park △△△△, who is not the Plaintiff’s child, and this is difficult to understand under social norms

④ On November 22, 2010, the amount obtained by deducting the gift tax of KRW 1,137,63,606,134,46,04,226 from the Plaintiff on the gift of KRW 3,453,140,013, 3,446,04,226 from the Plaintiff, which was reported and paid by △△△△△△△△△△△△△, and the amount remaining in the account of this case is about KRW 2.3 billion [3 million: KRW 2,315,47,07,07 (= KRW 3,453,453,140,013 -1,137,63,06), KRW 2,311,574,324 won (i.e., KRW 3,464,264, 134,134,469, - 279,479,794].

7) Park△△△ was deceased on March 16, 201, from November 22, 2010, on which the donation contract was made between the Plaintiff, Park△△△, and Park△△△△, and four months later.

① After the account was opened on June 20, 2085, no cash withdrawal transaction was made except for the transfer of KRW 27,703,335 to the Plaintiff’s other accounts on July 23, 2007. The Plaintiff and △△△△△△, drafted a donation contract between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff and △△△△△△ on November 22, 2010, and the money was deposited by the Plaintiff from December 27, 2010 to December 27, 2010.

(9) Article 45(4) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, which the Plaintiff claims as the basis of its assertion, is a newly established provision on January 1, 2013, which was established after the instant disposition. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court Decision 2008Da45828 Decided March 19, 2009, which the Plaintiff is entering into a deposit account, shall be limited to cases where not only the deposit account holder but also the deposit account holder is deemed a party to the deposit account, but also the deposit account holder is deemed to be a party to the deposit account, if it is possible to regard the contributor, etc. other than the deposit account holder as a party to the deposit account after undergoing a real-name verification procedure, but also it is extremely specific and objective evidence to reverse the probative value of the deposit account, etc. prepared through a real-name verification procedure under the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.