Seoul Administrative Court 2008Guhap37992 ( August 23, 2012)

Early High Court Decision 2008 Superintendent0190 (Law No. 86, 19, 2008)

It is not easy to reject the value of the certificate, and it does not constitute the identity theft.

(As with the judgment of the first instance court) In full view of the fact that the value of evidence of a written confirmation cannot be easily rejected unless there are any special circumstances, it is insufficient to deem that a person has acquired stocks by stealing his/her name, and that the provision on whether to transfer the ownership is determined by the detailed statement on the state of stock fluctuation is retroactively applicable.

2012Nu29037 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

HongA 3 others

1 other than the head of the Goyang Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2008Guhap37992 decided August 23, 2012

March 29, 2013

April 26, 2013

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiffs' claims corresponding thereto shall be dismissed;

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

1. The imposition of the gift tax on the plaintiff - HongA as of December 1, 2007 on the gift tax of KRW 000 for the year 200, KRW 000 for the year 2001, KRW 000 for the year 2002, KRW 000 for the year 200, KRW 000 for the year 200, KRW 000 for the year 2003, and KRW 000 for the year 200 for the year 2003, and KRW 00 for the year 2004 shall be revoked.

2. The imposition of gift tax of KRW 00,00 for the year 200 as of December 1, 2007 against the Plaintiff ParkB, and KRW 00 for the year 200 as of December 3, 2007, and KRW 000 for the year 200, KRW 000 for the year 200, KRW 000, and KRW 000 for the year 2003, KRW 000 for the year 2003, and KRW 000 for the year 2004 shall be revoked, respectively.

3. The imposition of gift tax of KRW 00 for the year 200, KRW 00 for the year 200, KRW 000 for the year 2001, KRW 000 for the year 2002, KRW 000 for the year 2003, KRW 000 for the year 2003, and KRW 000 for the year 200, KRW 000 for the year 200, and KRW 000 for the year 2004 shall be revoked respectively.

4. The imposition of gift tax of KRW 00,00,000, and KRW 000,000, and KRW 000,000, as of December 1, 2007, imposed on the Plaintiff’s tax office for the 2002 tax year, as of December 1, 2007, shall be revoked. The imposition of gift tax of KRW 00,000,00, and KRW 000,00, for the year 2003, and for the year 2004 shall be revoked.

Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Quotation of judgments of the court of first instance;

The reasons for this court's decision are as follows: (a) the title truster in the first instance court's judgment is amended to "title trustee", and (b) the first instance court's judgment in the first instance court's judgment in the first instance court's judgment in the first instance court's judgment in the first instance court's judgment from 12th to 14th, and (c) the first instance court's appeal in the first instance court's judgment in the second instance except for

2. Parts to be dried;

The provision of Article 337 of the Commercial Act that a person who acquired new shares shall not resist the company unless the name and address of the person who acquired the new shares are entered in the register of shareholders, is merely a provision on the transfer of shares, not a provision on the acquisition of new shares, and when the person who acquired new shares pays the subscription price on the fixed date, the rights and obligations of shareholders shall accrue from the day following the due date of payment under Article 423 of the Commercial Act. Therefore, even if stock certificates are not issued and the acquisition of new shares is not entered in the company because the list of shareholders is not kept in the register of shareholders, it does not interfere with the exercise of rights as a shareholder without due process when the new shares are paid on the date of payment of the subscription price, and the transfer of shares constitutes "where the actual owner and the nominal owner of the new shares are different in the property requiring transfer or exercise of rights" under the main sentence of Article 45-2 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (see Supreme Court Decision 9Du3843, Sept. 3, 199).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed due to the lack of reason, and the part against the defendants in the judgment of the court of first instance which has different conclusions is unfair, so it is revoked by accepting the defendants' appeal, and the corresponding plaintiffs' claims are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.