종합소득세부과처분취소
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The Defendant’s global income tax for the Plaintiff on April 1, 2016 1,157,696.
1. The reasons for the entry of this case by the court of first instance concerning this case are as stated in the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance except for the submission or addition of a part of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
(hereinafter the meaning of the terms used in this context is the same as the judgment of the court of first instance). 2. Parts dried or added are referred to in Part 5 for the second reason as “explosive”.
The second sentence shall add "(including the number of pages)" after "No. 1" in the second sentence.
Part 13 under the 4th Schedule "100 shares" shall be read as "10,00 shares".
The "31,325,554 won" in the 6th sentence shall be deemed to be "31,326,54 won", and the "A 4 or part of testimony" in the 16-18th sentence shall be deemed to be "A 4 or 10 evidence, entry of Eul 2 or 8 evidence, and testimony of J of the first instance trial witness."
The 6th parallels 19 to 9th parallels shall be followed as follows:
D. 1) Whether a sale of stocks constitutes a transfer of stocks which are assets transaction, or a retirement of stocks which are capital transaction or a refund of capital is to be determined based on the contents of the transaction and the intent of the parties concerned. However, under the substance over form principle, not simply depends on the contents or form of the contract in question, the entire process of the transaction, such as the parties’ intent and the process of concluding the contract, the method of determining the price, and the progress of the transaction, should be
(See Supreme Court Decisions 208Du19628 Decided October 28, 2010, Supreme Court Decision 2013Du1843 Decided May 24, 2013, etc.). 201: (a) According to the facts acknowledged earlier, the Plaintiff and the Nonparty Company resolved to retire the instant shares at the board of directors of the Nonparty Company on December 22, 2014, immediately after the instant share transaction between the Plaintiff and the Nonparty Company took place on December 19, 2014; and (b) on May 24, 2014, the board of directors of the Nonparty Company resolved to retire the instant shares.