증여세등부과처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the parts to be filled or added below, and thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
At the bottom of the 6th judgment of the first instance, 3, 7, 2, and 2 under the bottom of the court of first instance all the "witness" as a witness of the first instance.
The following shall be added from the 8th bottom of the judgment of the first instance to the following:
In addition, the Plaintiff alleged that the shares of this case were not owned by the Plaintiff from the beginning because it was lost at the time of acquiring D, and only L, G, and F did not have the ability to prepare the subscription price for shares because it was lost, and only L, G, and F did not have the ability to prepare the subscription price for shares. D continues to leave D in 2007, and L has renounced shares and allocated shares to C, G, and F by giving up shares. However, the Plaintiff did not have the ability to prepare the subscription price for shares at the time of acquiring D only
However, according to the reference documents attached to the defendant's reference documents as of January 3, 2019, the plaintiff discontinued the above corporation while operating the corporation, and operated the private company of P around July 25, 2001, the sales amount of P is KRW 1.3 billion, net income is KRW 50 million, net income is KRW 50 million to KRW 70,000,000, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, according to the reference documents attached to the defendant's reference documents as of January 3, 201, the plaintiff discontinued the corporation, and operated the private company of P around July 25, 2001. At the time of acquisition of D, the sales amount of P is KRW 1.3 billion, and net income is also increased at the time of retirement of L
The Plaintiff’s assertion is not accepted. The Plaintiff asserts that even if the instant shares were held in title trust, the instant disposition, based on the premise that the title trust was held with L, not L, is unlawful, since the title trust was held with L, which was first held in 2004 and was transferred in order to C and B.