Seoul High Court 2006Nu5023 ( December 15, 2006)

shares acquired without compensation shall not be deemed to constitute an independent property separate from the existing shares.

Although it is judged that the shares acquired without compensation fall under an independent property separate from the existing shares in legal form, it is merely divided, so it cannot be viewed that the shares held in title trust were held separately from the existing shares in title trust.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

Article 41-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In a case where capital reserve under the Commercial Act, such as an amount in excess of issuance of stocks, and revaluation reserve, etc. under the Assets Revaluation Act, are issued free of charge in accordance with the increase in capital due to the increase in capital as a result of the increase in the amount of stocks issued or the increase in assets revaluation reserve, etc., which are reflected in the asset value of the existing stocks, the amount of new stocks issued in proportion to the amount of the increase in capital is allocated to the existing stockholders in proportion to the number of stocks held by the existing stockholders. As such, although the company’s capital is increased, there is no change in net assets, and in principle, there is no difference in the ratio of the company’s total capital or the actual value of the company’s assets (see Supreme Court Decision 88Nu8548, Dec.

원심이 적법하게 인정한 사실관계에 의하면, 원고 명의로 된 주식회사 ☆☆☆☆☆케이션(이하 '소외 회사'라 한다) 발행의 이 사건 제2, 3 주식은 이○헌이 원고에게 소외 회사 발행의 이 사건 제1 주식을 명의신탁한 이후 소외 회사가 주식발행초과금을 자본에 전입함에 따라 이 사건 제1 주식의 소유명의자(명의수탁자)인 원고에게 그 지분비율대로 무상으로 배정된 것임을 알 수 있는바, 앞서 본 법리 및 관계 법령에 비추어 볼 때, 원고 명의의 이 사건 제2, 3 주식은 기존의 명의수탁주식인 이 사건 제1 주식이 실질적으로 분할된 것에 불과하여 원고가 이○헌으로부터 기존의 명의수탁주식과 별도로 명의신탁받은 것으로 볼 수는 없고, 따라서 이 사건 제1 주식 이외에 이 사건 제2, 3 주식에 대해서까지 구 상속세 및 증여세법(2002. 12. 18. 법률 제6780호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다) 제41조의2 제1항을 적용하여 증여세를 부과한 것은 위법하다고 할 것이다(대법원 2006. 9. 22. 선고 2004두11220 판결 참조).

Nevertheless, the court below determined that the shares Nos. 2 and 3 of this case acquired by the above free capital increase constituted a title trust property separate from the shares initially held in the name of the plaintiff on the ground that the shares of this case fall under a title trust property separate from the shares initially held in the name of the plaintiff on the ground that the shares of this case fall under an independent property separate from the existing shares, although legal and formal, it is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the subject of taxation under Article 41-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, which affected the conclusion of

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