Whether the requirement for deemed donation under Article 32-2 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act is satisfied solely on the statement of stock transfer status on the statement of stock transfer status.

The transfer of registered shares cannot be asserted against the company unless the name and address of the acquisitor are entered in the register of shareholders. Thus, insofar as the transfer of rights, which are the requirements for deemed donation pursuant to Article 32-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283, Dec. 31, 1990), is required for the transfer or exercise of rights, which are the requirements for deemed donation pursuant to Article 32-2(1) of the same Act, the actual owner and the nominal owner cannot be deemed to be different. Thus, since the detailed statement of stock transfer, which is a document to be submitted at the time of reporting the tax base and tax amount of corporate tax, cannot be the same as the list of shareholders, even

Articles 32-2 and 32-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283 of Dec. 31, 1990)

Supreme Court Decision 87Nu1052 decided Apr. 25, 1988 (Gong1988,920) 91Nu3833 decided Dec. 24, 1991 (Gong1992,714) 93Nu3103 decided Apr. 27, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 1615)

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Head of Ulsan District Office

Busan High Court Decision 92Gu4185 delivered on May 21, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first and second grounds for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, when the non-party 1 reported the tax base and tax amount of corporate tax on the income in 1989 by the non-party 1 Korea Red Co., Ltd. (the change of company name on August 27, 1990), the court below stated that the non-party 1's 26,00 shares were transferred to the non-party 2's 5,200 shares of the above non-party 1's 5,20 shares were transferred to the non-party 1's her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her.

On the other hand, as long as the transfer of registered shares does not enter the name and address of an acquisitor in the register of shareholders in the register of shareholders, it cannot be asserted against the company unless the actual owner of the shares enters the name and address of the acquisitor in the register of shareholders, so long as the transfer of rights, which are the requirements for deemed donation under Article 32-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283, Dec. 31, 1990; hereinafter the same shall apply), are not different from the actual owner and the nominal owner, and it cannot be deemed that the transfer of shares cannot be made even if the actual owner and the nominal owner are different from the list of shareholders, since the statement of stock transfer, which is a document to be submitted when filing the tax base and tax amount of corporate tax, cannot be the same as the list of shareholders, and thus, even if the defendant reported the transfer of shares in the statement of stock transfer (see Supreme Court Decision 93Nu3103, Apr. 27, 1993).

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 3 through 7

In sum, in the instant case where the judgment of the court below is deemed to be justifiable since the court below did not properly conduct a hearing in a family judgment in addition to the above judgment of recognition or criticizes that there was an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles, the above judgment of the court below does not affect the conclusion of the judgment.

3. 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 Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)