구체적 입증·주장없이 처분의 취소를 구하는 것은 허용되지 아니함[국승]
District Court-2013-Gu Partnership-609 ( November 19, 2013)
It is not allowed to seek cancellation of the disposition without specific proof or recommendation.
It is not allowed to seek revocation of disposition by asserting that it is irrelevant to economic concentration or the purpose of evading gift tax without any specific assertion or proof on the requirements of Article 48(2)2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is beyond the scope of interpretation of the provision.
Article 48 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act
Seoul High Court 2013Nu52317
AA of a school foundation
000 director of the tax office
July 7, 2017
August 11, 2017
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The gift tax attributed to the defendant against the plaintiff on October 4, 201, 201.
Each disposition of imposition of KRW 401,497,600, and KRW 26,600,000, for the year 2002, shall be revoked.
1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;
The reason for this decision is as follows, except for the revision of the first instance judgment as follows:
C. Therefore, it is admitted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
(c)
0. The proviso to Article 16 (2) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act shall be applied at the bottom of two sides of the judgment of the first instance.
In addition, the proviso of Article 48(2)2 provides that “1. The proviso of Article 49(1) falls under the proviso of Article 49(1).” 2. 3. Where a public-service corporation, etc., which is not in a special relationship with an enterprise group under the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, acquires stocks, etc. of a domestic corporation that is not in a special relationship with its contributors, etc.; 4. Where prescribed by Presidential Decree, gift tax shall not be imposed. To recognize that a public-service corporation is not likely to use it as a means of control against a domestic corporation, the said four requirements must be satisfied (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Du21447, Apr. 20, 20
0 up to 5 pages 6 of the former Inheritance Tax Law at the bottom of the fourth decision of the first instance.
Part 2. Elimination
0 6 pages 5 of the first instance judgment "the above requirement" is "Article 48 (2) 2 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act".
every requirement set forth in the proviso to paragraph (1).
2. Conclusion
If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance shall be with the same conclusion.
Since the plaintiff's appeal is legitimate, it is dismissed as it is without merit.