(a) Legislative intent and subject matter of Article 32-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act;

B. The case holding that it cannot be deemed that there was a purpose of evading gift tax by concealing the donation of stocks even if a substantial owner of the company has partially trusted the shares to another person

A. The provisions of Article 32-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283, Dec. 31, 1990) purports to prevent the abuse of the title trust system by concealing donations in property requiring the transfer or exercise of rights, etc., and thus, the purport of legislation lies in preventing the abuse of the title trust system by means of evading gift taxes by concealing donations. Thus, the separate name of the title, such as registration, etc., should not be deemed to be a donation if it becomes for the purpose of avoiding gift taxes by concealing donations, not for the purpose of

B. The case holding that the substantial owner of a company's shares in title trust to its executives and employees while promoting the disclosure of the company has the intention to avoid disadvantages under the tax law, which would be incidental to the oligopolistic shareholder at the time of the disclosure of the company by lowering the stock ownership ratio as a major shareholder, and at the same time, at the same time, to avoid disadvantages under the company law and to reduce excessive comprehensive income tax, and exercise all the rights such as acquiring shares with his own funds, and directly receiving dividends on the shares, but it is merely merely a trust on the list of shareholders by distributing only the nominal ownership of the shares, and it cannot be deemed that there was no purpose of evading gift tax by concealing the donation of the shares.

A.B. Article 32-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283 of Dec. 31, 1990); Article 103 of the Civil Act / [title trust]

A. (2) Supreme Court Decision 92Nu10685 delivered on March 23, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 1319) (Gong193Sang, 1321). Supreme Court Decision 92Nu4383 delivered on March 23, 1993 (Gong1992, 2914). Supreme Court Decision 93Nu20900 delivered on February 22, 1994 (Gong1127) (Gong194Nu6789 delivered on August 26, 1994).

Plaintiff 1 and 2 Plaintiffs, Attorneys Kim Jin-jin et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee

The director of the tax office.

Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu26327, 26334 (Consolidated), 26341 (Consolidated) Decided May 17, 1995

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 32-2 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283 of Dec. 31, 1990) intends to prevent the abuse of the title trust system by concealing donations in property that requires the transfer or exercise of the right and to avoid gift tax by means of avoiding gift tax. As such, the purport of the legislation lies in the establishment of the party members’ establishment that the separate name, such as the registration, etc., is not to be deemed to be a gift if it comes to fall under the category of a separate title due to statutory restrictions or other similar circumstances, not to avoid gift by concealing donations (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Nu4383, Sept. 8, 1992; 94Nu6789, Aug. 26, 1994).

On April 30, 198, Nonparty 1, who is the representative director of the newly constructed company and the actual owner of the company, obtained the listing requirements as a single issue, and could have been 51% or less of the total number of issued and outstanding shares. Thus, in order to reduce the ownership ratio by distributing the shares in advance, the actual acquisition of the shares in this case with its own funds at the time of gratuitous increase of capital and sale of its own shares was listed in the list of shareholders. The above Nonparty 1 acquired the shares in this case for the purpose of acquiring the shares in this case and registered only in the name of the plaintiffs in the list of shareholders. The above opportunity was for the plaintiffs to avoid disadvantage under the tax law that the above company would have received as the second liability for tax payment and distributed the shares in this case to the above oligopolistic shareholder, and there was no intention to reduce the burden of global income tax imposed by the above oligopolistic shareholder to the above 10th shareholder and to receive the shares in this case under the name of the above 10th shareholder's company's name and to receive the shares in this case.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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 Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)