원고가 이 사건 주식대금을 대여하였다고 보기 부족하고 원고가 이 사건 주식의 실제 소유자에 해당함[국승]
Seoul Administrative Court-2015-Gu Partnership-68772 (2016.09)
It is insufficient to view that the Plaintiff lent the instant share price, and that the Plaintiff constitutes the actual owner of the instant shares.
In light of the current status and relationship of property holdings, the details of the statement at the time of interrogation of the prosecution, etc., it is insufficient to view that the Plaintiff is deemed to have lent the acquisition fund to the nominal shareholder who is an employee, and rather, it seems that there was an intent to avoid capital gains tax, etc. of the major shareholder on listed stocks.
Article 45-2 (Presumption of Donation of Title Trust Property)
2016Nu67976 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax
ZZ
YThe director of the tax office
March 23, 2017
April 13, 2017
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Cheong-gu Office
The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's disposition to jointly impose gift tax of KRW 1,936,873,380 against the plaintiff on August 1, 2013 shall be revoked.
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
The reasoning of this Court’s ruling is as follows, except for the dismissal or addition of some content:
Since the judgment of the court is the same as the entry, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Parts to be removed or added.
○ The second half of the judgment of the first instance court is " August 28, 2013" as " August 1, 2013."
○ “1,936,873,380 won” of the 7th sentence of the second instance judgment of the first instance shall be added to “(including additional taxes).”
○ The 3.7 billion won following the 4th judgment of the first instance court shall be "3.7 billion won" under the 16th judgment.
The second sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance, the "suspect's personal service" in the second sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance is regarded as the "suspect interrogation".
3. Conclusion
Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is groundless.