양도소득세부과처분취소
1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. At the time of December 31, 2009, the Plaintiffs, both couples and couples, owned a total of KRW 10,057,023,00,00 of the 58,813 share shares of Hyundai Eas Co., Ltd., a stock-listed corporation, and the total market value.
B. On December 30, 2010, the Plaintiffs transferred 27,820 shares of the said Hyundai Embs (Plaintiff A25,820 shares, Plaintiff B2,00 shares).
(hereinafter “transfer of this case”). (c) The transfer of this case
As to the transfer of this case, based on Article 94(1)3 (a) (hereinafter “instant legal provision”) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9897, Dec. 31, 2009; Act No. 10408, Dec. 27, 2010) and Article 157(4)2 (hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of this case”) of the former Enforcement Decree of Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21301, Feb. 4, 2009; Presidential Decree No. 22580, Dec. 30, 2010); the Defendant imposed capital gains tax on the Plaintiff A on July 7, 2011; the Defendant imposed capital gains tax of KRW 1,60,96,100; and capital gains tax of KRW 30,706,640,640 on the Plaintiff.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.
The plaintiffs had gone through the procedure of the previous trial.
[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, A 1-1 to 2, B 1-1, 1-2
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. (1) According to Article 20 of the Enforcement Decree of this case, where the total market value of the shares of the pertinent corporation owned by one shareholder, his/her relatives under Article 20 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes, or other specially related persons (hereinafter “other shareholders”) as of the end of the fiscal year immediately preceding that to which the transfer date of shares belongs is not less than 10 billion won, the transfer income tax shall be imposed on the transfer of shares by the relevant one shareholder and other shareholders (hereinafter “a large shareholder”). This is against the Constitution for the following reasons.
It is against the principle of equality (Article 11(1) of the Constitution) by discriminating against a major shareholder who is subject to capital gains tax and its non-taxable shareholder (hereinafter “non-taxable shareholder”).