(재심기각) 제3자 배정방식에 의한 유상증자에 참여하여 증여이익이 발생한 것임[국승][국승]
Seoul High Court 2014Nu45934 ( December 09, 2014)
(Dismissal of Review) The fact that the profit from donation has been generated by participating in the capital increase with capital increase in accordance with the method of allocation to a third party (National Subscription
(1) It cannot be deemed that the issue price at the time of the increase of the summary does not exceed the scope of the discount rate under the Securities Issuance Regulations or there is no benefit of donation deemed to be no benefit of donation solely on the ground that the Financial Supervisory Service has approved it
The donation of profits from capital increase under Article 39 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act
Supreme Court-2014Du217 ( October 15, 2015)
○ Kim
The head of Yangcheon Tax Office
Seoul High Court 2014Nu45934 ( December 09, 2014)
oly 15, 201
The request for retrial is dismissed.
The litigation costs for retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.
We examine the reasons for the request for retrial.
The summary of the reason for the request for retrial is that there are grounds for retrial under Article 451, Paragraph 1, Item 8 (when a judgment or other judgment or administrative disposition which forms the basis of a judgment is changed by a different judgment or administrative disposition), Item 9 (when a judgment on important matters that may affect a judgment has been omitted) of the Civil Procedure Act.
As long as a claim on the grounds of appeal by an original judgment falls under a ground for non-trial deliberation as prescribed by Article 4 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure for Appeal, it cannot be said that the judgment was omitted as to important matters affecting the judgment, inasmuch as the final appeal is dismissed without further deliberation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du301, Jun. 26, 2008). Therefore, there is no ground for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act in the new judgment. Furthermore, even upon examining the record, there is no ground for retrial under Article 451(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act, such as the Plaintiff (Plaintiff
Therefore, the retrial is dismissed, and the costs of winning the retrial are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.