양도소득세부과처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the changed plaintiff's claim that are exchanged in the court room are all dismissed.
2. Action.
1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: Gap evidence submitted additionally in the court of first instance, which is insufficient to recognize the plaintiff's assertion, shall be rejected, and part of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be dismissed or added as Paragraph 2, and except for addition of the judgment of the court of first instance as to the plaintiff's new argument in the court of first instance as Paragraph 3, it shall be identical to the entry of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, which is not sufficient to recognize the plaintiff's assertion.
2. Subsequent to the imposition of KRW 46,058,430 on the ground that the Plaintiff donated NY 1,00,000 shares to a non-resident, the head of the distribution tax office having jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s domicile and the head of the distribution tax office having jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s last domicile, found that the said imposition was imposed on August 10, 2016, and the head of the distribution tax office revoked the said imposition on August 10, 2016, and the Defendant again imposed a gift tax of KRW 446,058,430 on the ground that the Plaintiff donated NY 1,00 shares to the non-resident.
Part 7 of the 15th [based grounds for recognition] add “A No. 41 and B No. 25” to the following "including household numbers".
The plaintiff in Part 7 of the first 21 added "the plaintiff shall not be the price for the consulting services provided by W and X to J, but shall be the string sign for the success of W and X in performing the above services."
Part 11 [Attachment 12] The following shall be added to:
“In addition, the number of days of stay in Korea and abroad from August 24, 2004 through September 11, 2006, for which the Plaintiff acquired the permanent residence of Canada, from August 24, 2004 to September 11, 2006, respectively, shall be 440 days and 311 days, and the number of days of stay in each country during the above period shall be as follows: