[증여세부과처분취소][공1987.1.1.(791),30]
Whether an affiliated company in the same group is a person with a mutual relation.
Even if there is an affiliated company in the same group, such circumstance alone does not necessarily constitute a case where it is evident that the same person was friendly due to the same workplace relationship under Article 19 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 1522 of Apr. 19, 1982).
Article 19 of the Enforcement Rule of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 1522 of April 19, 1982)
[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others (Attorney Song Jin-hun, Counsel for defendant-appellee)
Head of Sungbuk Tax Office
Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu124 delivered on October 21, 1985
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.
1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the above Maritime Co., Ltd. issued 1,00,000 new shares on May 19, 1981 (1,000 won per share) and issued 1,000,000 won shares at the time of issuing capital increase, Nonparty 1 owned 21.09%, Nonparty 29.82%, and Nonparty 3 owned 29.09% at the time of issuing capital increase, but the above Maritime Co., Ltd. did not clearly recognize that the above Maritime Co., Ltd.’s 1,00,000 shares were transferred to the above Maritime Co., Ltd.’s 1,00,000 shares and were allocated to the above Maritime Co., Ltd.’s Maritime Co., Ltd.’s 1,200,000 shares to the above Maritime Co., Ltd.’s Maritime Co., Ltd.’s 1, 2001.
The court below did not find any defects in the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, and even in the case of proof of the same workplace relationship as prescribed in Article 19 of the above Enforcement Rule, the tax authority should separately prove the facts related to the transferor, so there is no illegality in the misapprehension of the legal principles of the above Enforcement Rule.
2. The judgment of the court below is based on the following arguments by the defendant, i.e., the representative director of the company in which three of the above non-party invested, and thus the plaintiff is practically an employee of the above three persons, and thus, the plaintiff is a person in a special relationship under Article 34-4 of the Inheritance Tax Act and Article 41 (4) and (2) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. However, although there is a defect in the judgment of the court below, the plaintiff can be deemed as an employee of the company as the representative director of the company in which three of the plaintiff invested, but it cannot be deemed as an employee of the above three of the company, the plaintiff and the above non-party did not affect the conclusion of the court below's decision revoking the disposition of gift tax
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 Park Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)