Open Decision Ledger · Tax & international taxation
Deemed gift on re-registered nominee shares and the surtax's conduct requirement
Supreme Court, Sept. 15, 2022, 2018Du37755 (judgment)
Case name: 증여세연대납세의무자지정통지처분등취소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
May gift tax be imposed again under the deemed-gift provision of Article 45-2(1) of the former Inheritance and Gift Tax Act on shares acquired with the sale proceeds of shares that were themselves first deemed gifted and registered again in the same nominee's name, and must the nominee trustee have committed fraudulent conduct before a wrongful-non-filing surtax is imposed or joint liability placed on the nominal owner?
Holding
No, in principle. Shares bought with the sale proceeds of nominee shares that were first deemed gifted and registered again in the same nominee's name are not taxed a second time, unless they are severed in time or in nature and amount to a separate new nominee trust. The same rule applies where the nominal owner borrowed against the existing nominee shares, bought new shares registered in the same name, and sold the existing shares before that registration to repay the loan, because the substance is no different. A wrongful-non-filing surtax may be imposed on the nominee trustee, and joint liability placed on the nominal owner, only where the trustee, the original gift-tax payer, can be said to have committed fraudulent conduct in relation to the non-filing.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
그 무신고와 관련하여 본래의 증여세 납세의무자인 명의수탁자가 부정행위를 하였다고 평가할 수 있어야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
it must be the case that the nominal trustee, the original obligor of the gift tax, committed a fraudulent act in connection with such failure to file.
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결의 원고 패소 부분 가운데 원심판결 별지5 기재 각 신고불성실가산세 중 일반무신고가산세를 초과하는 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
Of the part of the judgment of the court below in which the plaintiff lost, the portion of each of the additional taxes for failure to file a return set forth in Appendix 5 to the judgment of the court below that exceeds the general non-filing additional tax is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
이러한 사정을 종합적으로 고려하면, 명의수탁자에게 명의신탁재산의 증여의제 규정에 따른 증여세에 관한 부당무신고가산세를 부과하거나 명의신탁자에게 이에 대한 연대납세의무를 부담시키기 위해서는
Unofficial English translation
Taking these circumstances into consideration comprehensively, in order to impose on the nominal trustee an additional tax for unjustified failure to file a return with respect to the gift tax under the provisions on deemed gift of property held in nominal trust, or to impose on the nominal trustor a joint and several tax payment liability in respect thereof,
Factors
- 최초의 명의신탁 주식과 시기상 또는 성질상 단절되어 별개의 새로운 명의신탁 주식으로 인정되는 등의 특별한 사정이 없는 한
- 그 명의개서가 이루어지기 전에 기존 명의신탁 주식을 매도하여 그 매도대금으로 해당 대출금을 변제하였다면
- 기존 명의신탁 주식의 매도대금으로 새로운 주식을 취득하여 다시 동일인 명의로 명의개서한 경우와 그 실질이 다르지 않으므로
- 따라서 명의신탁재산의 증여의제 규정에 따른 증여세의 과세가액 및 과세표준을 신고할 의무는 납세의무자인 명의수탁자에게 있다
- 그 무신고와 관련하여 본래의 증여세 납세의무자인 명의수탁자가 부정행위를 하였다고 평가할 수 있어야 한다
Unofficial English translation
• Unless there are special circumstances, such as where the shares held in nominal trust are recognized as separate and new shares held in nominal trust severed from the first shares held in nominal trust in terms of timing or nature,
• if the existing shares held in nominal trust were sold before such registration was made and that loan was repaid with the proceeds of that sale,
• in that its substance is not different from the case where new shares were acquired with the proceeds of the sale of the existing shares held in nominal trust and were re-registered in the same person's name,
• Accordingly, the duty to report the taxable value and the tax base of the gift tax under the provisions on deemed gift of property held in nominal trust lies with the nominal trustee, who is the tax obligor,
• it must be the case that the nominal trustee, the original obligor of the gift tax, committed a fraudulent act in connection with such failure to file.
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2017. 2. 21. 선고 2011두10232 판결(공2017상, 646)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2011Du10232 decided February 21, 2017 (Gong 2017 Sang, 646)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2017. 2. 21. 선고 2011두10232 판결(공2017상, 646)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
What conduct by a nominee trustee amounts to fraudulent conduct for a wrongful-non-filing surtax where the trustee held shares of many different nominal owners across several accounts?
The remand judgment of the Seoul High Court on the surtax, once it examines the nominees' conduct, will show what evidence satisfies the requirement. Any amendment to Article 45-2 of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act or to Article 47-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, or a later decision changing the deemed-gift rule for re-registered shares, would require this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 6 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 4 (form of the test), axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Circumstances weighed” vs Independent “Elements stated”
The primary records the fraud requirement as a holistic weighing of circumstances, while the independent reading records it as a stated requirement; both describe the same test.
그 무신고와 관련하여 본래의 증여세 납세의무자인 명의수탁자가 부정행위를 하였다고 평가할 수 있어야 한다.Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “What conduct by a nominee trustee amounts to fraudulent conduct for a wrongful-non-filing surtax where the trustee held shares of many different nominal owners across several accounts?” vs Independent “What degree of temporal or substantive separation makes replacement shares a distinct new nominee holding subject to another deemed-gift tax?”
The primary asks what nominee conduct counts as fraud across several accounts, while the independent reading asks how much temporal or substantive separation makes a new nominee holding.
그 무신고와 관련하여 본래의 증여세 납세의무자인 명의수탁자가 부정행위를 하였다고 평가할 수 있어야 한다.Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul High Court, in its judgment of 6 February 2018 (2017Nu35334), held that shares bought with a loan secured by existing nominee shares were a separate new nominee trust and had to be taxed again, while accepting that no second tax arose where the existing shares were sold before the new registration and the loan was repaid from the proceeds. On the surtax it held that the plaintiff had committed fraudulent conduct by classifying nominees to pre-empt audits, using numerous nominee securities accounts, holding shares of several companies in nominees' names and omitting capital-gains tax filings, so the wrongful-non-filing surtax was lawful. It also held that premium valuation applied to the gift-tax base and that the taxpayer had to prove, but had not proved, the exclusion under Article 53(6)(vi) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error on re-taxation, since the rule against a second tax leaves open shares severed in time or in nature from the first nominee shares, and a loan-funded purchase registered in the same name is no different in substance where the existing shares are sold and the loan repaid before the new registration. On the surtax it held the court below had misread the law and left the case untried: the gift-tax payer is the nominee trustee and the nominal owner merely pays jointly, so the duty to file rests with the trustee, and the surtax under Article 47-2(1) and (2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes attaches only to that payer's fraudulent conduct. Because no examination had been made of the nominees' own conduct, that part was reversed and remanded; the remaining grounds of both sides failed.
Distinguishing conditions
- Shares severed in time or in nature from the first nominee shares and found to be a separate new nominee trust, since the rule against a second tax leaves that case open.
- A case in which the nominee trustee, and not only the nominal owner, is shown to have committed fraudulent conduct in relation to the non-filing.
- A purchase of new shares with loan money where, before the new registration, the existing nominee shares are not sold and the loan is not repaid from the proceeds.
Record verification notes
For each gift-tax year, identify the version of Article 45-2 of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act and of Article 47-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes in force, since the decision applies several pre-amendment texts. Then trace, account by account, the order of the loan, the new share purchase, the registration and the sale of the existing shares, since the second tax turns on that sequence. Finally, gather what the record shows about the nominees themselves, their accounts and their filings, because the plaintiff's own planning and concealment cannot alone sustain the surtax.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 구 상속세 및 증여세법 제45조의2 제1항에 따라 최초로 증여의제 대상이 되어 과세되었거나 과세될 수 있는 명의신탁 주식의 매도대금으로 취득하여 다시 동일인 명의로 명의개서된 주식에 대하여 다시 명의신탁재산의 증여의제 규정에 따라 증여세가 과세될 수 있는지 여부(원칙적 소극) / 이러한 법리는 명의신탁자가 기존 명의신탁 주식을 담보로 받은 대출금으로 새로운 주식을 취득하여 동일인 명의로 명의개서를 하였으나, 그 명의개서가 이루어지기 전에 기존 명의신탁 주식을 매도하여 그 매도대금으로 해당 대출금을 변제한 경우에도 그대로 적용될 수 있는지 여부(적극) [2] 명의수탁자에게 구 상속세 및 증여세법 제45조의2 제1항에 따른 증여세에 관한 부당무신고가산세를 부과하거나 명의신탁자에게 이에 대한 연대납세의무를 부담시키기 위해서는 그 무신고와 관련하여 본래의 증여세 납세의무자인 명의수탁자가 부정행위를 하였다고 평가할 수 있어야 하는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether gift tax may again be assessed under the provisions on deemed gift of property held in nominal trust on shares that were acquired with the proceeds from the sale of shares held in nominal trust which first became subject to deemed gift and were taxed or could be taxed pursuant to Article 45-2 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and that were re-registered in the same person's name (in principle, negative) / Whether such legal principle may apply equally where the nominal trustor acquired new shares with a loan for which the existing shares held in nominal trust were provided as security and re-registered them in the same person's name, but sold the existing shares held in nominal trust before such registration was made and repaid that loan with the proceeds of the sale (affirmative) [2] Whether, in order to impose on the nominal trustee an additional tax for unjustified failure to file a return with respect to the gift tax under Article 45-2 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, or to impose on the nominal trustor a joint and several tax payment liability in respect thereof, it must be the case that the nominal trustee, the original obligor of the gift tax, committed a fraudulent act in connection with such failure to file (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
[1] 구 상속세 및 증여세법(2015. 12. 15. 법률 제13557호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 ‘구 상증세법’이라 한다) 제45조의2 제1항 본문은 ‘권리의 이전이나 그 행사에 등기 등이 필요한 재산의 실제소유자와 명의자가 다른 경우에는 국세기본법 제14조에도 불구하고 그 명의자로 등기 등을 한 날에 그 재산의 가액을 명의자가 실제소유자로부터 증여받은 것으로 본다.’고 규정하고 있다(위 법 이전의 과세기간 중 ‘명의신탁재산의 증여의제 규정’도 같은 취지이다. 이하 개정 전후를 구분하지 않고 ‘명의신탁재산의 증여의제 규정’이라 통칭한다). 명의신탁재산의 증여의제 규정에 따라 최초로 증여의제 대상이 되어 과세되었거나 과세될 수 있는 명의신탁 주식의 매도대금으로 취득하여 다시 동일인 명의로 명의개서된 주식에 대하여는 그것이 최초의 명의신탁 주식과 시기상 또는 성질상 단절되어 별개의 새로운 명의신탁 주식으로 인정되는 등의 특별한 사정이 없는 한 다시 명의신탁재산의 증여의제 규정에 따라 증여세가 과세될 수 없다. 한편 명의신탁자가 기존 명의신탁 주식을 담보로 받은 대출금으로 새로운 주식을 취득하여 동일인 명의로 명의개서를 하였으나, 그 명의개서가 이루어지기 전에 기존 명의신탁 주식을 매도하여 그 매도대금으로 해당 대출금을 변제하였다면, 기존 명의신탁 주식의 매도대금으로 새로운 주식을 취득하여 다시 동일인 명의로 명의개서한 경우와 그 실질이 다르지 않으므로 이러한 경우에도 앞서 본 법리가 그대로 적용될 수 있다. [2] 구 상속세 및 증여세법(2015. 12. 15. 법률 제13557호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 ‘구 상증세법’이라 한다) 제45조의2 제1항(위 법 이전의 과세기간 중 ‘명의신탁재산의 증여의제 규정’도 같은 취지이다. 이하 개정 전후를 구분하지 않고 ‘명의신탁재산의 증여의제 규정’이라 통칭한다)에 따른 증여세의 납세의무자는 명의수탁자이고, 명의신탁자는 명의수탁자와 연대하여 해당 증여세를 납부할 의무를 부담할 뿐이다(명의신탁재산의 증여의제 규정 및 구 상증세법 제4조 제1항, 제5항). 따라서 명의신탁재산의 증여의제 규정에 따른 증여세의 과세가액 및 과세표준을 신고할 의무는 납세의무자인 명의수탁자에게 있다(구 상증세법 제68조 제1항). 그리고 부당무신고가산세는 ‘납세의무자’가 부정행위로 법정신고기한까지 세법에 따른 국세의 과세표준 신고를 하지 아니한 경우에 부과된다[구 국세기본법(2013. 6. 7. 법률 제11873호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제47조의2 제1항, 제2항, 구 국세기본법(2011. 12. 31. 법률 제11124호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제47조의2 제2항]. 이러한 사정을 종합적으로 고려하면, 명의수탁자에게 명의신탁재산의 증여의제 규정에 따른 증여세에 관한 부당무신고가산세를 부과하거나 명의신탁자에게 이에 대한 연대납세의무를 부담시키기 위해서는 그 무신고와 관련하여 본래의 증여세 납세의무자인 명의수탁자가 부정행위를 하였다고 평가할 수 있어야 한다.
Order
1. 원심판결의 원고 패소 부분 가운데 원심판결 별지5 기재 각 신고불성실가산세 중 일반무신고가산세를 초과하는 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다. 2. 원고의 피고 구로세무서장, 남동세무서장, 노원세무서장, 도봉세무서장, 동대구세무서장, 동수원세무서장, 동안양세무서장, 마산세무서장, 반포세무서장, 분당세무서장, 성남세무서장, 성동세무서장, 성북세무서장, 송파세무서장, 수영세무서장, 안양세무서장, 역삼세무서장, 영등포세무서장, 용산세무서장, 울산세무서장, 이천세무서장, 인천세무서장, 잠실세무서장, 제주세무서장, 종로세무서장, 중부세무서장, 창원세무서장, 천안세무서장, 춘천세무서장, 충주세무서장, 파주세무서장, 포천세무서장, 거창세무서장에 대한 상고와 나머지 피고들에 대한 나머지 상고 및 피고들의 상고를 모두 기각한다. 3. 상고비용 중 원고와 피고 구로세무서장, 남동세무서장, 노원세무서장, 도봉세무서장, 동대구세무서장, 동수원세무서장, 동안양세무서장, 마산세무서장, 반포세무서장, 분당세무서장, 성남세무서장, 성동세무서장, 성북세무서장, 송파세무서장, 수영세무서장, 안양세무서장, 역삼세무서장, 영등포세무서장, 용산세무서장, 울산세무서장, 이천세무서장, 인천세무서장, 잠실세무서장, 제주세무서장, 종로세무서장, 중부세무서장, 창원세무서장, 천안세무서장, 춘천세무서장, 충주세무서장, 파주세무서장, 포천세무서장, 거창세무서장 사이에 생긴 부분은 각자 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
1. Of the part of the judgment of the court below in which the plaintiff lost, the portion of each of the additional taxes for failure to file a return set forth in Appendix 5 to the judgment of the court below that exceeds the general non-filing additional tax is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. 2. The plaintiff's final appeals against the defendants Head of Guro Tax Office, Head of Namdong Tax Office, Head of Nowon Tax Office, Head of Dobong Tax Office, Head of Dongdaegu Tax Office, Head of Dongsuwon Tax Office, Head of Donganyang Tax Office, Head of Masan Tax Office, Head of Banpo Tax Office, Head of Bundang Tax Office, Head of Seongnam Tax Office, Head of Seongdong Tax Office, Head of Seongbuk Tax Office, Head of Songpa Tax Office, Head of Suyeong Tax Office, Head of Anyang Tax Office, Head of Yeoksam Tax Office, Head of Yeongdeungpo Tax Office, Head of Yongsan Tax Office, Head of Ulsan Tax Office, Head of Icheon Tax Office, Head of Incheon Tax Office, Head of Jamsil Tax Office, Head of Jeju Tax Office, Head of Jongno Tax Office, Head of Jungbu Tax Office, Head of Changwon Tax Office, Head of Cheonan Tax Office, Head of Chuncheon Tax Office, Head of Chungju Tax Office, Head of Paju Tax Office, Head of Pocheon Tax Office, and Head of Geochang Tax Office are dismissed, the remaining final appeals against the remaining defendants are dismissed, and all of the defendants' final appeals are dismissed. 3. The costs of the final appeal incurred between the plaintiff and the defendants Head of Guro Tax Office, Head of Namdong Tax Office, Head of Nowon Tax Office, Head of Dobong Tax Office, Head of Dongdaegu Tax Office, Head of Dongsuwon Tax Office, Head of Donganyang Tax Office, Head of Masan Tax Office, Head of Banpo Tax Office, Head of Bundang Tax Office, Head of Seongnam Tax Office, Head of Seongdong Tax Office, Head of Seongbuk Tax Office, Head of Songpa Tax Office, Head of Suyeong Tax Office, Head of Anyang Tax Office, Head of Yeoksam Tax Office, Head of Yeongdeungpo Tax Office, Head of Yongsan Tax Office, Head of Ulsan Tax Office, Head of Icheon Tax Office, Head of Incheon Tax Office, Head of Jamsil Tax Office, Head of Jeju Tax Office, Head of Jongno Tax Office, Head of Jungbu Tax Office, Head of Changwon Tax Office, Head of Cheonan Tax Office, Head of Chuncheon Tax Office, Head of Chungju Tax Office, Head of Paju Tax Office, Head of Pocheon Tax Office, and Head of Geochang Tax Office shall be borne by each party.
Provisions referred to
[1] 구 상속세 및 증여세법(1998. 12. 28. 법률 제5582호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제43조 제1항(현행 제45조의2 제1항 참조), 구 상속세 및 증여세법(2002. 12. 18. 법률 제6780호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제41조의2 제1항(현행 제45조의2 제1항 참조), 구 상속세 및 증여세법(2003. 12. 30. 법률 제7010호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제41조의2 제1항(현행 제45조의2 제1항 참조), 구 상속세 및 증여세법(2007. 12. 31. 법률 제8828호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제45조의2 제1항, 구 상속세 및 증여세법(2010. 1. 1. 법률 제9916호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제45조의2 제1항, 구 상속세 및 증여세법(2011. 12. 31. 법률 제11130호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제45조의2 제1항, 구 상속세 및 증여세법(2015. 12. 15. 법률 제13557호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제45조의2 제1항 [2] 구 상속세 및 증여세법(1998. 12. 28. 법률 제5582호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제43조 제1항(현행 제45조의2 제1항 참조), 구 상속세 및 증여세법(2002. 12. 18. 법률 제6780호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제41조의2 제1항(현행 제45조의2 제1항 참조), 구 상속세 및 증여세법(2003. 12. 30. 법률 제7010호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제41조의2 제1항(현행 제45조의2 제1항 참조), 구 상속세 및 증여세법(2007. 12. 31. 법률 제8828호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제45조의2 제1항, 구 상속세 및 증여세법(2010. 1. 1. 법률 제9916호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제45조의2 제1항, 구 상속세 및 증여세법(2011. 12. 31. 법률 제11130호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제45조의2 제1항, 구 상속세 및 증여세법(2015. 12. 15. 법률 제13557호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제4조 제1항, 제5항, 제45조의2 제1항, 제68조 제1항, 구 국세기본법(2011. 12. 31. 법률 제11124호로 개정되기 전 것) 제47조의2 제2항(현행 제47조의2 제1항 제1호, 제2항 참조), 구 국세기본법(2013. 6. 7. 법률 제11873호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제47조의2 제1항(현행 제47조의2 제1항 제2호 참조), 제2항(현행 제47조의2 제1항 제1호, 제2항 참조)
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger