Value of the entries in the statement of stock transfer;

The detailed statement of stock transfer shall be deemed as a document submitted by a domestic corporation liable to pay taxes pursuant to related Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Corporate Tax Act, along with a report of tax base return of the corporate tax, to the Government, and accordingly, if the statement of stock transfer states that there has been a stock transfer and accordingly the change of ownership on the register of shareholders has been made, barring special circumstances, such as the forgery or

Article 34(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act, Article 45(3)28 of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Head of Mapo Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu25316 delivered on March 18, 1993

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The court below acknowledged that Non-party 1, the mother of the plaintiff, on April 1, 198, entered that the plaintiff's shares were transferred from the plaintiff on April 1, 198 with respect to Samyang Metal Co., Ltd. 37,239 (hereinafter "the shares of this case") owned by the plaintiff, and that the transfer of shares was made in the above non-party 1's name on the register of shareholders. However, the dispute was continued by the evidence surrounding the management right of the above company, and the plaintiff knew that the shares of this case were transferred to the above non-party 1 under the statement of stock transfer, and that the above non-party 1 did not prepare and preserve a written confirmation of transfer of shares of this case from the plaintiff and the above non-party 1, the court below acknowledged that the transfer of shares of this case was unlawful based on the premise that the plaintiff's transfer of shares of this case was approved by the plaintiff's shareholder rights as to the shares of this case.

2. However, if a domestic corporation liable to pay corporate tax pursuant to related Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Corporate Tax Act, submits a statement of stock transfer to the Government along with a report of tax base of corporate tax, and accordingly the statement of stock transfer stated that there was a stock transfer in the statement of stock transfer and accordingly the change of ownership was made on the register of shareholders, barring special circumstances such as the forgery or false preparation, the stock transfer based on

According to the statement of stock transfer of the above company, the above non-party 1 stated that the above non-party 1 transferred the shares of this case from the plaintiff on April 1, 198, and accordingly, the fact that the transfer of ownership was made is also recognized by the court below. According to the above company's statement of stock transfer, each of the shares of the plaintiff's husband, her husband, white book, and village, etc. are transferred to the above non-party 1 as of April 1, 198, and the shares of the above non-party 1 or other shareholders' shares of the above non-party 1 were transferred to the same person as the shares of the same company, and the above non-party 1 stated that the shares of the above company, including the shares of this case, were transferred to the non-party 2 and the non-party 3 on April 1, 1990.

However, as long as the dispute continues between the plaintiff and the non-party 1 over the management right of the above company, it would be apparent that the non-party 1 et al. prepares a false document that received the shares of this case from the plaintiff and manipulates the specifications of shareholders' movement. In this case, the legal issues, such as criminal liability, etc., are followed. In this regard, the fact that the plaintiff filed a criminal complaint against the non-party 1 et al. does not appear to be recorded, and if the non-party 1 prepares a false document that received the shares of this case from the plaintiff, it is not easy to explain the reasons why the shares of this case were transferred to the non-party 2 and the non-party 3, and thereafter, if the non-party 1 did not have received the shares of this case from the plaintiff, the non-party 1 did not have any trace on the records.

In addition, the fact that the plaintiff was aware that the shares of this case were transferred to the above non-party 1 in the statement of stock transfer only after receiving the notice of imposition of this case, is the plaintiff's testimony, which is the white part of the plaintiff's interest, and it is difficult to accept this. The plaintiff and non-party 1 did not prepare and preserve the contract for stock transfer, and it is not directly related to whether there was the fact of stock transfer.

In addition, even if Nonparty 1 prepared a written confirmation that the Plaintiff did not acquire the shares of this case from the Plaintiff (No. 4-1 of the evidence A), in light of the fact that, even though Nonparty 1 actually acquired the shares of this case from the Plaintiff in light of the personal relationship among them, it cannot be excluded from the possibility of preparing a written confirmation ex post facto due to tax issues or other circumstances, the above indirect facts acknowledged by the lower court do not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the said detailed statement of the share transfer and the transfer of ownership pursuant thereto are not legitimate.

Therefore, the court below should have determined whether the plaintiff took legal action against the above non-party 1 such as a criminal complaint, if there is no such fact, what reason is, what is the transfer of the shares by the non-party 1 or other shareholders, whether the plaintiff is recognized as a shareholder with respect to the shares of this case in spite of the entry in the register of shareholders in the above company, or whether the transfer of the shares was duly made by the plaintiff on April 1, 198, the above non-party 1 should have determined whether the above non-party 1 received the shares of this case from the plaintiff on April 1, 198, the detailed statement of the status of the share transfer and the transfer of the shares in this case. However, the court below accepted the plaintiff's assertion that the above statement of the status of the share transfer and the transfer of the shares are not a legitimate transfer of the shares, without any delay, or by misconceptioning the facts against the rules of evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and therefore, it is difficult to be exempted from criticism.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)