주주명부가 작성되지 아니 한 경우 2004년 이전 귀속분은 주식등변동상황명세서에 의하여 증여세 과세할 수 없음[일부패소]
Seoul High Court 2013Nu20501 (20 March 20, 2014)
Cho High Court Decision 201Do5089 ( October 30, 2012)
Where the register of shareholders has not been prepared, the portion reverted to before 2004 shall not be subject to gift tax pursuant to the detailed statement on the state of changes in stocks, etc.
Where the register of shareholders is not prepared, the provisions of Article 45-2 (3) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act amended shall not apply retroactively to the donations made before January 1, 2004, which are judged by the detailed statement of change of stocks, etc.
Donation of title trust property under Article 45-2 (3) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act
2014du580 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing gift tax
New○○ 7
○○ Head of Tax Office and seven others
Seoul High Court Decision 2013Nu20501 Decided March 20, 2014
July 24, 2014
The part of the judgment of the court below against the Defendants shall be reversed, and the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this part shall be revoked, and the lawsuit shall be dismissed
Of the total litigation cost, the part arising between Plaintiff ○○ and Defendant ○○○○ Tax Office is the above Defendant; the part arising between Plaintiff ○○○ and Defendant ○○○ Tax Office is the part arising between Plaintiff ○○ and Defendant ○○ Tax Office; the part arising between Plaintiff ○○ and Defendant ○○ Tax Office is the part arising between Plaintiff ○○○ and Defendant ○○ Tax Office; the above Defendant is the Defendant; the part arising between Plaintiff ○○ and Defendant ○○ Tax Office is the part arising between Plaintiff ○○ and Defendant ○○ Tax Office; the said Plaintiff 3/20 of the part arising between Plaintiff ○○ and Defendant ○ Tax Office is the remainder; the said Plaintiff 1/10 of the part arising between Plaintiff ○○ and Defendant ○○ Tax Office is the remainder; the remainder is the Defendant; and the remainder is the remainder of the Plaintiff.
Judgment ex officio is made.
According to the records, the Defendants’ revocation ex officio of the part against the Defendants in the lower judgment among each of the dispositions of this case between June 27, 2014 and July 1, 2014, which was after the filing of the instant final appeal. Thus, the Plaintiffs’ claim for revocation of the said part of the lawsuit was made as it did not have any interest in the lawsuit, and thus, became unlawful as there was no interest in the lawsuit.
Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the Defendants is reversed, and it is decided to see that this case is sufficient for this court to directly render a judgment. For the reasons as seen earlier, the judgment of the court of first instance as to this part is revoked, and this part of the lawsuit is dismissed. Of the total cost of the lawsuit, the part arising between Plaintiff 1 and Defendant 1, and between Plaintiff 2 and Defendant 1, and between Plaintiff 2 and Defendant 1, the part arising between Plaintiff 1 and Defendant 2, and between Plaintiff 1 and Defendant 2, are borne by the above Defendant, and between Plaintiff 1 and Defendant 1, the part arising between Plaintiff 2 and Defendant 1, and between Plaintiff 2 and Defendant 3, the above Defendant’s portion arising between Plaintiff 3 and Defendant 2, and the above Defendant’s portion arising between Plaintiff 3 and Defendant 3, and the remainder are borne by the above Defendant. The remainder of the part arising between Plaintiff 1 and Defendant 2, as per the Disposition above, is decided by the assent of all participating Justices.