Seoul Administrative Court 201Guhap755 ( August 18, 2011)

early 2010west2026 ( December 29, 2010)

Where a change of entry is made without agreement on title trust, the provisions on deemed donation cannot be applied.

(1) In a case where a transfer of title is made without agreement on title trust, the provision on deemed donation of title trust cannot be applied. Moreover, the provision on deemed donation of title trust cannot be applied as it cannot be deemed that there exists an agreement on title trust in a case where the title of shares is transferred for the purpose of collateral security

2011Nu31064 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

XX

Head of Seodaemun Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 201Guhap755 decided August 18, 2011

December 14, 2011

February 15, 2012

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. Costs of appeal are borne by the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s disposition of imposing gift tax amounting to KRW 111,464,960 on the Plaintiff on April 13, 2010 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. cite the judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for this court's decision are as follows: (a) the evidence No. 3 of the first instance court's decision 4th 5th th 5th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th; (b) the evidence No. 4 of the fifth below th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th

2. Additional determination

The defendant asserts that the agreement between the fund investors, such as XX and Optional, does not stipulate that the above allocated shares should be secured, and that the fund investors, such as pregnantA, etc. under the above agreement, are not the secured party to the above allocated shares, but the status of the subscriber, and that in fact, the fund investors, such as pregnantA, etc., directly pay the share price and receive shares in their names and are listed in the register of shareholders in the register of shareholders (AA received shares in the name of the plaintiff). In light of the fact that it appears that the fund investors, such as pregnantA, etc., would have acquired the above shares for the original purpose of transfer, the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have acquired the

The secured goods of the instant investment agreement include only 20% of the cashier’s checks against investment funds, and the above allocated stocks are not indicated as the secured goods (Evidence 3). However, considering the financing agreement of this case and the content and purport of the instant investment agreement, even if the fund investors, such as GA, etc. invested in the name of their or a third party designated by them, and actually acquired the shares and completed the transfer procedure, the fund investors, such as GA, etc., paid the subscription price for new shares to the non-party company in lieu of CCC and completed the transfer procedure. However, in full view of the fact that the shareholders, who actually received the allocated shares, can only be deemed as CCC which received the above allocated shares as a security for the relevant investment funds, and it is reasonable to view that CCC, etc. offered the aforementioned allocated shares as a security for transfer in accordance with the instant financing agreement and the instant investment agreement, etc. under the premise that the aforementioned allocated shares were offered by the fund investors, etc.

3. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.