주제별 논단 : 금융법 판례의 최근 동향 ; 타인명의 예금계좌에 입금된 금액에 대한 증여여부 판단에 관하여 -대법원 2009. 3. 19. 선고, 2008다45828 판결과 관련하여 출연자의 예금에 대한 실질적 지배 인정범위를 중심으로- = Whether a Deposit Made into a Third Party`s Bank Account Constitutes a Gift -based on the scope of a contributor`s actual control over a deposit under the Supreme Court`s Decision rendered on March 19, 2009, Case No. 2008Da45828-

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

If a contributor is recognized as having actual control over a specific deposit, the owner of the bank account cannot be viewed as having received that deposit as a gift subject to gift tax. Accordingly, recognizing a contributor`s actual control over a deposit is important in determining the propriety of gift taxes imposed on the owner of the relevant bank account due to the receipt of that deposit amount as a gift. In the past, a contributor`s actual control over a deposit was widely recognized without taking into account the relationship between the contributor and the account owner. However, the scope of recognizing a contributor`s actual control over a deposit should differ depending on whether the contributor and the account owner are members of the same family as a consumer community. In other words, if they have a family relationship, the recognition of the contributor`s actual control over the deposit should be strictly limited, and even if they do not have a family relationship, such recognition should be limited pursuant to the purpose of the real-name financial transaction system more than prior to the implementation of such real-name financial transaction system. The Supreme Court Decision rendered on March 19, 2009, Case No. 2008Da45828 (the "Decision") changed this precedent, holding that a contributor will not be recognized as a party to the deposit contract based on the existence of an implicit agreement. The Decision open ups the possibility for an account owner to enjoy double benefits by allowing it the protection of the Depositor Protection Act and exempting it from gift tax based on a logic that the contributor is exercising actual control over the deposit. However, such possibility would hinder the implementation of the real-name financial transaction system, which is the essential intent of the Decision. Therefore, if the contributor`s actual control of the deposit is limited and the scope of the contributor`s actual control over the deposit differs depending on the whether the contributor and the account owner are members of the same family, such double benefits may be prevented and the implementation of the real-name financial transaction system may be greatly enhanced by increasing the risks of anyone using a borrowed-name account.