beta
(영문) 대구고등법원 2016.12.23 2015누6751

증여세부과처분취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, as the representative director and the shareholder of the Plaintiff Company B (hereinafter “instant company”), was allocated 28,166 shares forfeited from the subscription for new shares issued in three times in 2011, as stated in the list in the following paragraphs (hereinafter “instant shares”).

The amount of tax to be notified of the profit from donation per share of the number of stocks subject to the allocation of capital increase in excess of the actual amount of stocks to be distributed for each capital increase; 6,500 6,500 5,005,005,000 64,027 383,675,500 53,844, 301 December 20, 2011; 11,334 20,000,665,665,000 40,747 309,783,503,506,006,000 83,006,000,0000,0000, 130,500, 536, 2016, 205, 306, 205, 206, 2005, 2636, 2016

B. From September 2, 2013 to September 27, 2013, the Defendant: (a) conducted an investigation of stock fluctuation with respect to the instant company; and (b) deemed that the instant share allocation constitutes a donation of profits arising from the increase of capital under Article 39(1)1 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act; and (c) accordingly, Article 63(1)1 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that the instant

First, on December 1, 2013, the Plaintiff determined and notified KRW 198,356,520 of the gift tax (hereinafter “instant disposition”) as indicated in the following table to the Plaintiff on December 1, 2013.

C. On March 5, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Tax Tribunal to revoke the instant disposition, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on June 30, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 to 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that there was no substantial operating profit for several years since excessive disbursement of personnel expenses to prepare for sales. To borrow funds for the operation of the company from financial institutions, the cost of outsourcing services, such as the wages of officers and employees from the year 2008 to the year 2010, and the advertising agency fee for the year 2010, shall be appropriated as the development cost of each intangible asset.