Seoul Administrative Court 201Guhap779 ( October 20, 2011)

early 2010west2025 ( December 29, 2010)

Ownership of stocks for the purpose of transfer is not subject to deemed donation due to transfer.

Even if the ownership of shares for the purpose of transfer is transferred from the obligor to the obligee, the obligee is not the ownership of the shares, but merely the possession of the security right. Therefore, the disposition of imposition is unlawful since there is no room for applying the provision on the constructive gift of title trust.

2011Nu28334 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing gift tax

XX

Head of Seodaemun Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2011Guhap7779 decided July 20, 201

December 22, 2011

January 12, 2012

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are borne by the defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of gift tax of KRW 227,656,930 against the Plaintiff on April 13, 2010 is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

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

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following additions in the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination of the political party

"The defendant does not state the content that the above shares should be offered as security to fund investors, such as XX and OA, as well as fund investors such as OA, etc. under the above agreement are not the secured party to the above allocated shares, but the status of the subscriber. In fact, the fund investors such as OA, etc., paid the shares directly and receive the shares allocated under their names (the shares were allocated under the plaintiff's name) and are listed in the register of shareholders, so that fund investors such as OA, etc. have acquired the shares at the time of original acquisition of the above shares, it cannot be said that the plaintiff merely acquired the shares for the purpose of transfer to security.

살피건대, 갑 제4호증의 기재에 의하면, 이 사건 투자약정서의 담보물건으로는 "투자금 대비 자기앞수표 20% 만 기재되어 있고, 위 배정주식이 담보물건으로 기재되어 있지 않은 사실은 인정되나, 앞서 본 이 사건 자금조달약정 및 이 사건 투자약정의 내용 및 그 취지에 비추어보면, 비록 오AA 등 자금투자자들이 그들 또는 그들이 지정한 제3자 명의로 출자하여 신주청약대금을 납입하고 실제로 주식을 인수한 다음 명의개서 절차까지 마쳤더라도, 오AA 등 자금투자자들은 QQQ를 대신하여 QQQ가 소외 회사에 납부할 신주청약대금을 XX에 대한 투자금 명목으로 납부하고, 그 투자금에 대한 담보로 위 배정주식을 인수받아 명의개서를 마친 것에 불과하여 위 배정주식을 실질적으로 인수받은 주주는 신주청약대금을 납부한 QQQ이며, 이처럼 위 배정주식의 소유권을 취득한 QQQ가 이 사건 자금조달약정 및 이 사건 투자약정에 따라 위 배정주식을 오AA 등 자금투자자들에게 양도담보로 제공하였다고 봄이 상당하므로, 이와 달리 오AA 등 자금투자자들이 위 주식을 원시 취득하였음을 전제로 한 피고의 이 부분 주장은 이유 없다

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.