이 사건 지급금은 주식 처분대가로 지급받은 것이 아니라 증여받은 것임[국승]
Seoul High Court 2012Nu35773 (Law No. 27, 2013.09)
early trial 201 middle 0156 (2.03, 2012)
The payment of this case was not received as payment for stock disposal, but received as a donation;
The imposition of gift tax is lawful on the grounds that each of the instant payments cannot be deemed to have been distributed out of the proceeds from investment or the proceeds from the sale of the joint property of the married couple.
Article 2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act
2013Du21915 Disposition of revocation of Imposition of Gift Tax, etc.
1. A. 2. Austria
Head of Central Tax Office
Seoul High Court Decision 2012Nu35773 Decided September 27, 2013
February 13, 2014
All appeals are dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
In citing the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, the lower court determined that the disposition of this case is lawful, based on the following circumstances: (a) the Plaintiff sold shares Nos. 1 and 2 of this case from 2006 to 2009 and the Plaintiff B, the husband, for four times in total, from December 31, 2006 to December 31, 2009; and (b) the Plaintiff, the husband, for three times in total, paid OOB out of the remainder of the proceeds from the sale to April 23, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as “each payment of this case”), and in light of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the Plaintiffs cannot be deemed to have received each payment of this case as proceeds from investment or joint property of the husband and wife, and the gift tax was imposed on the Plaintiffs.
Examining the records in light of the relevant legal principles, the above determination by the court below is acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by recognizing facts in violation of logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending the legal principles on return of investment proceeds, title trust of shares under a joint investment agreement, or joint property of the couple.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.