증여세부과처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows: each “ August 1, 2013.” each “General Additional Tax on the 3rd, 5th, and 6th,” “Additional Tax on the 4th, 18th, and 5th,” “Additional Tax on the 5th, 2013.8.1.1”; each “General Additional Tax on the 5th, and 6th,” “Additional Tax on the 4th, 18th, to 5th,” and the 4th, 4th, 18th to 6th, are the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of the first instance, except for the addition of the determination of the Plaintiff’s new assertion at the court of the first instance, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
In addition to the purport of the entire arguments as seen earlier, “The Plaintiff’s father and the father and the F’s actual resignation, 3,000 shares of B and F (hereinafter “instant shares”).
(2) The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the instant disposition 2, stating that the instant shares transfer did not constitute a gift to the Plaintiff on October 8, 2014, while the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the instant disposition, on June 25, 2015, on the grounds that the Seoul Administrative Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on the grounds that, in the course of the Plaintiff’s tax investigation with respect to F, it is reasonable that the instant shares transfer is deemed that “the instant shares transfer was the original shares owned by B, and that the title trust was donated to D, and that D, etc. was made a false statement due to tax officials’ coercion or return.” (Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2014Guhap6761), and that the Plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed on January 22, 2016 (Seoul High Court Decision 2015Nu526161, May 26, 2016).
Therefore, it is reasonable to view the substance of the transfer of shares of this case as the gift to the plaintiff of this case. Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is acceptable.