쟁점주식이 舊「증권거래법」소정의 유가증권 모집방법에 의하지 아니한 저가 인수로 증여이익을 얻은 것으로 보아 과세함이 타당함[국승]
Seoul Administrative Court 2012Guhap36309 ( October 30, 2014)
2012west 4708 ( December 31, 2012)
It is reasonable to impose tax on the shares of the issue as the gift gains by acquiring at a low price which is not based on the old securities and Exchange Act.
It is only 49 persons who have been solicited to subscribe, etc. to acquire stocks, and there are no other circumstances to recognize the fact that 50 or more persons have solicited to subscribe, etc., so it is difficult to regard them as general public offering under the Securities and Exchange Act excluded from the subject of gift tax.
The donation of profits under Article 39 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act
2015Nu75 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing gift tax
aa
b Head of the Tax Office
Seoul Administrative Court 2012Guhap36309 ( October 30, 2014)
October 21, 2015
November 11, 2015
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke each disposition of imposition of KRW 00,00,000 on August 1, 2012, and KRW 30,521,440 on gift tax, and KRW 00,000,00 on gift tax against the plaintiff on August 1, 2012.
1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;
The reasoning of this court's judgment is as follows, except for the addition of the following judgments as to the plaintiff's assertion, and thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
A. Summary of the assertion
The defendant accepted the claim of lec that some of the stocks subject to taxation should be excluded from taxation because lecc is not the stocks acquired by lec with respect to some of the stocks subject to taxation among other public subscribers, and imposed gift tax only on the plaintiff even though tax base and tax amount were corrected, is contrary to the principle of circumstances.
B. Determination
According to the overall purport of the statements and arguments in Eul evidence Nos. 4 and 5, the defendant takes over 00,000 shares of the shares initially identified as lecc's acquisition in the name of lec's Doddd and other eight persons, and the actual acquisitor of the above shares corrected the disposition by excluding the above 00,000 shares from the taxable shares of lec's dd and other eight persons. Accordingly, the defendant can recognize the fact that the defendant imposed gift tax on the lec's 00,00 shares excluded from the taxable shares of lec's above taxation.
The Defendant imposed the instant disposition on the Plaintiff’s actual stocks subject to taxation, and the instant disposition did not include the stocks acquired under its name (it does not seem that the Plaintiff asserted that the stocks subject to taxation of this case include the stocks acquired only in the name of the Plaintiff). Therefore, there is no room to discuss the principle of disposition and circumstances where title trust is not problematic on the ground that the stocks subject to taxation of lec were included in title trust, and that the initial disposition was modified. The Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.
3. Conclusion
The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The plaintiff is dismissed.