Whether "transfer of entry in the register of shareholders due to the termination of title trust" constitutes "acquisition of shares from shareholders" under Article 105 (6) of the former Local Tax Act (negative)

In a case where the name of ownership on the register of shareholders was entered in the name of ownership on the register of shareholders and the name was opened in the name of shareholders, the next person entered in the name of ownership on the register of shareholders is merely a shareholder on the register of shareholders, and even if a beneficial shareholder entered in the name of a shareholder on the register of shareholders on the register of shareholders, this is merely a recovery of the name on the register of shareholders by a beneficial shareholder, and thus does not constitute a case where a shareholder acquired shares from a shareholder under Article 105 (6) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5406 of Aug. 30, 1997). In addition, the "acquisition of shares" in the same paragraph does not constitute an object of acquisition tax, and therefore, it cannot be viewed as a "acquisition of shares" on the register of shareholders due to the cancellation of trust under Article 110 subparagraph 1 (b) of the same Act, which does not constitute an "acquisition of ownership due to the cancellation of trust under Article 110 subparagraph 1 (b) of the same Act.

Articles 105(6) and 110 subparag. 1(b) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5406 of Aug. 30, 1997)

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Attorney Jeong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Leecheon-si (Attorney Yoon Sang-hoon et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 97Gu13766 delivered on March 31, 1998

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 105 (6) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5406, Aug. 30, 1997; hereinafter the same) provides that "When a person becomes an oligopolistic stockholder pursuant to subparagraph 2 of Article 22 by acquiring the stocks of a corporation from a shareholder of the corporation, he shall be deemed to have acquired the real estate, etc. of the corporation."

According to the facts duly established by the court below, even if the above shares were to be paid in full by 20,00 shares at the time of the incorporation of the non-party 1 corporation on March 28, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party 1 corporation"), since the plaintiff 1 owns 6,00 shares in the register of shareholders and 40 shares, and the remaining 13,60 shares were registered in the name of non-party 1, non-party 2, non-party 3, non-party 4, non-party 5 and non-party 6's six shares were listed in the above 9-party 1's list of shareholders on June 15, 1989, and the above 9-party 1's shares were owned by the non-party 4, non-party 5 and non-party 6's shares under the above 9-party 1's name on the 9-party 1's list of shareholders.

In addition, since "acquisition of stocks" under the above Local Tax Act does not themselves become subject to acquisition tax, its concept cannot be grasped in the same line as that of acquisition tax, and therefore, it constitutes "acquisition which is not subject to acquisition due to the termination of trust under the Trust Act under Article 110 subparagraph 1 (b) of the Local Tax Act where the transfer of ownership due to the termination of real estate title trust is exempt from acquisition tax (Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal concerning this point), it cannot be said that the same applies to "transfer of ownership due to the termination of title trust" on the register of shareholders.

The decision of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principle as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. The remaining precedents cited in the ground of appeal are inappropriate to be invoked in the

The grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Im-soo (Presiding Justice)