beta
(영문) 대법원 2016.03.10 2015두3577

증여세부과처분취소

Text

The judgment below

The part against the defendant is reversed, and the judgment of the first instance on this part is revoked, and this part of the lawsuit is brought.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. If an administrative disposition against the defendant's grounds of appeal is revoked, the disposition is invalidated, and no longer exists, and a lawsuit seeking revocation against a non-existent administrative disposition is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit.

(2) According to the reasoning of the lower judgment on October 28, 2015, the lower court’s decision to revoke ex officio the disposition of imposition as to the part of the instant lawsuit against the Defendant on December 13, 2012 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du18202, Dec. 13, 2012). In so doing, the lower court’s decision to revoke the disposition of imposition as to the part of the instant lawsuit against the Defendant on October 28, 2015, which was subsequent to the filing of the instant final

2. Regarding the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal

A. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the actual transaction value, which is the basis for calculating capital gains tax, is not a general market price that reflects the objective exchange value, but the actual transaction price itself or the price for payment at the time of the transaction. Therefore, where a transaction subject to capital gains tax is a simple exchange, the actual transaction price cannot be confirmed if the transaction subject to capital gains tax is a simple exchange, but where the exchange is a value-added exchange based on the value of the object, such as following the procedure for settling accounts for the difference in the appraised value, it constitutes a case where the actual transaction price is verifiable. In such cases, the money value of the object acquired through the exchange and the amount of paid cash, etc. are the actual transfer value of the object to be transferred through the exchange (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du19465, Feb. 10, 201). The lower court falls under the object of capital gains tax as a compensatory transfer of the asset even if stocks of an unlisted corporation are transferred