beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017. 09. 29. 선고 2017누50838 판결

실권주배정통지에 따라 주주가 포기한 실권주를 소외법인으로부터 직접 배정받은 방식을 택한 이상 이는 실권주 배정으로 봄이 상당함[국승]

Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit

Seoul Administrative Court-2016-Gu Partnership-9787 ( October 12, 2017)

Title

As long as the forfeited stocks which were abandoned by the shareholder following the notice of allocation of forfeited stocks are selected by the non-party corporation, it is reasonable to view the forfeited stocks as allocation of forfeited stocks.

Summary

As long as a shareholder has selected the method of directly allocating forfeited stocks from the non-party corporation, it is inevitable to regard the allocation of forfeited stocks as stipulated in Article 39(1)1(a) of the Act. The difference between the market price of new stocks, which is profits acquired by those who received forfeited stocks by allocating forfeited stocks at a price lower than the market price and the price actually allocated shall be deemed as the value of donated property.

Related statutes

Article 39 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

Cases

2017Nu50838 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

Plaintiff and appellant

Park AA

Defendant, Appellant

Head of Seodaemun Tax Office

Judgment of the first instance court

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2016Guhap9787 decided May 12, 2017

Conclusion of Pleadings

September 15, 2017

Imposition of Judgment

September 29, 2017

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's gift tax (including additional tax) against the plaintiff on January 14, 2016 shall be revoked.

15,244,844 won shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

This judgment is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.