(심리불속행) 조세회피목적의 명의신탁에 해당함[국승]
Seoul High Court 2012Nu9446 (27 December 2012)
early 2010 Heavy0363 ( November 02, 2010)
(C) the title trust for the purpose of tax avoidance
(Summary of the Supreme Court Decision 201Da11488 delivered on May 2, 201, which held that the right of preferential purchase can be exercised against the plaintiff regardless of the payment of the purchase price is established.
2013Du1164 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax
SAA
Head of Central Tax Office
Seoul High Court Decision 2012Nu9446 Decided September 27, 2012
All appeals are dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff and the supplementary intervenor.
All of the records of this case and the judgment of the court below and the grounds of appeal were examined, but it is clear that the allegations on the grounds of appeal by the appellant fall under Article 4 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure for Appeal, and all of the appeals are dismissed under Article 5 of the same Act. It is so decided as per Disposition
Reference materials.
If the grounds for final appeal are not included in the grounds of appeal that make it appropriate for the court of final appeal to become a legal trial, such as matters concerning significant violation of Acts and subordinate statutes, etc., the system of final appeal will not continue to proceed with the deliberation on the merits of the grounds for final appeal, but will not proceed with the deliberation on the merits of the grounds for final