증여세부과처분취소
1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiffs and the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.
purport, purport, and.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is to dismiss the judgment of the court of first instance, and to add the judgment on the plaintiffs' arguments in the following paragraphs, and therefore, it is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of
Of the two pages, the term “ July 7, 2011” is deemed to read “ July 7, 2009” and “ July 8, 2011” to read “ July 8, 2009”.
5 The following shall be added to the 6th below:
【The method of calculating profits arising from the increase of capital pursuant to Article 29(3)1 and (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act, which provides for the method of calculating profits arising from the increase of capital, is using the concept “value per share before the increase of capital” in such formula, and the method of evaluating the value of property subject to inheritance tax or gift tax pursuant to the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act as stated in Article 60 of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act. In light of such relevant provisions and literal interpretation, it cannot be deemed as an analogical interpretation to calculate the value per share before the increase of capital according to the method stipulated in Article 63(1) of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act and Article 52-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act, which provides for the method of calculating profits arising from the increase of capital. The Plaintiffs’ assertion on different premise is not acceptable. 7th of the 7th anniversary of the date of the increase of capital.
In addition, even if both the primary and secondary capital increase are measures under a management acquisition agreement as alleged by the Plaintiffs, in light of the fact that the procedures and conditions for the capital increase are different, the economic substance of the primary and secondary capital increase is not the same. This part of the Plaintiffs’ assertion cannot be accepted.
There is no reason that the term "no reason exists" shall be 7th below.
Article 63 (1) 1 (a) of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act.