[증여세부과처분취소][미간행]
Plaintiff 1 and four others (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Jeong Jong-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Head of Yeongdeungpo-gu Tax Office and two others
July 3, 2013
Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2011Guhap2736 decided December 6, 2012
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The disposition imposing gift tax on the Plaintiffs as specified in the attached Table shall be revoked.
1. Quotation of the first instance judgment
The reasoning of this court is that the reasoning of this court is stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment on the plaintiffs' assertion that is especially emphasized or re-emphasized in this court. Thus, this court cites it in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
2. Judgment on the plaintiffs' assertion
The Plaintiffs asserted that each of the instant dispositions was unlawful on the ground that it was conducted in the form of “the imposition of gift tax” in order to recover unjust enrichment for excess refund even though each of the instant dispositions did not meet the taxation requirements, and did not specify that it was a refund in excess of the tax payment notice, and that it cannot be deemed a legitimate “disposition of return of excess refund” under Article 51(7) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 9911, Jan. 1, 2010).
In light of the evidence adopted in the judgment of the court of first instance as seen earlier and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiffs, from January 2005 to March 2007, shall be deemed to have the value per share for calculating the gift tax on non-listed stocks issued to non-party 1, etc., as “reported value” under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, have disputed over a long period of time. (2) The Defendants, around 2007, indicated the following purport: (a) the Defendants’ determination that the shares paid in kind were disposed of by public auction and thus, cannot be refunded as it is; and (b) the Defendants’ determination that the amount of tax should be deemed to have been erroneously indicated as “the amount of tax to be refunded” as the basis for calculating the amount of tax refund under the previous tax payment notice; and (c) the amount of tax to be refunded as “the amount of tax to be refunded” as the basis for calculating the amount of tax refund under Article 1 of the National Tax Collection Act, as indicated in [Attachment 2].
Therefore, the plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.
[Attachment]
Judges Cho Dong-dong (Presiding Judge)