[지방세부과처분취소][공1992.4.1.(917),1057]
Whether a company issuing shares, employee, or other employment relationship constitutes an oligopolistic shareholder under the main sentence of Article 105(6) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4269 of Dec. 31, 1990) (negative)
With respect to the definition of oligopolistic shareholders under Article 105 (6) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4269 of Dec. 31, 1990), Article 22 subparagraph 2 of the same Act and Article 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that “a shareholder or one partner and his relative or other person in a special relationship with him as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, who holds not less than 51/100 of the total amount of issued and outstanding stocks or of the total amount of investment of the juristic person concerned” refers to an oligopolistic shareholder, and “a relative or other person in a special relationship as prescribed by the Presidential Decree” refers to a prescribed relative, employee, or other person in a special relationship with him. Thus, even according to the language and text of the above provision, to be an oligopolistic shareholder, there is a specific shareholder, an employee, or other person in a special relationship with him, and the issuing company, employee, or other person
Articles 105(6) and 22 subparag. 2 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4269 of Dec. 31, 190), Article 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act
[Judgment of the court below]
Head of the North Korean Office in Daegu Special Metropolitan City
Daegu High Court Decision 90Gu807 delivered on June 12, 1991
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
Article 105 (6) of the Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4269 of Dec. 31, 1990) provides that “When an oligopolistic stockholder becomes an oligopolistic stockholder pursuant to the provisions of subparagraph 2 of Article 22 by acquiring the stocks or shares of a corporation from a stockholder or employee, the oligopolistic stockholder shall be deemed to have acquired the real estate, vehicle, heavy standing timber or aircraft of the corporation concerned,” and Article 22 subparagraph 2 of the same Act and Article 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that the definition of oligopolistic stockholder shall be defined as “one stockholder or partner and his relative or a person in a special relationship with him as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, whose total amount of stocks or investment is not less than 51/100 of the total issued stocks or investment amount of the corporation concerned,” and “a person who is a relative or a person with a special relationship as prescribed by the Presidential Decree” shall be defined as “a person in a relationship of relationship, employee, or other person in an employment relationship with the company concerned, not an employee or other employee.
In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the non-party, who is an employee of the non-party corporation of the non-party corporation of the non-party corporation, who is an employee of the non-party corporation of the non-party corporation of this case, is an oligopolistic stockholder of the non-party corporation only after August 31, 1988, and the plaintiff became an oligopolistic stockholder of the non-party company and acquired the amount equivalent to 77.33% of the plaintiff's excessive share ratio of the total assets, such as the real estate of the non-party company at that
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)