[증여세부과처분취소][공1987.4.1.(797),469]
(a) The burden of proving the person in special relationship;
(b) Whether there is a special relationship under Article 41(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act between directors and shareholders of the company
(o) The fact alone cannot be deemed to have been objectively clear on the basis of the same workplace relationship under Article 19 of the Enforcement Rule of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 1522 of Apr. 19, 1982). Furthermore, the facts related to the transferor should be proved, and the burden of proof should be borne by the tax authority.
B. A person who served as an executive director of the company can be deemed as an employee of the company, but it cannot be deemed as an employee of the company’s shareholders, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there is a special relationship among them.
Article 34-4 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (Act No. 3179, Dec. 28, 1979); Article 41-3 of the former Enforcement Decree of Inheritance Tax Act; Article 19 of the former Enforcement Rule of Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 1522, Apr. 19, 1982)
B. Supreme Court Decision 85Nu890 Decided November 11, 1986
Plaintiff-Appellee et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant
Head of Southern District Tax Office
Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu1162 delivered on July 3, 1986
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the above non-party 1 corporation's non-party 1's new shares were issued on May 19, 1981 to 100,00 won (1,00 won per share) and the above non-party 1's new shares were entirely owned by the non-party 1, 1, and 3's third party 1's shares at the time when the non-party 1's new shares were transferred to the non-party 1's company's employees, and the plaintiff's 5's shares were transferred to the above non-party 1's executive director at the time of the above non-party 1's issuance of new shares to the non-party 1's company's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 9's non-party 1'
All arguments are groundless.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Kim Dal-sik (Presiding Justice)