쇠지지지 3000 개은은은은은 3000 아은은은은은이 3000 아은은은은은은 3000 아은은은은 3000 이 개은은 3000 개이 3002008 19635 gift tax

Article 300 Zingu300 Zingu 3000 Zingu 3000 Zingu3000 Seoul High Court Decision 2008Nu12605 decided October 10, 2008

쇠은은 이 개은은은 3000 개은은은 3000 개은은은은은 3000 이 이 이 3000 fishery 28 October 28, 2002

44 44 44 44 44 45 44 444 64 44

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

쇠鹬 쇠鹬 3000 쇠鹬 3000

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 39-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7010, Dec. 30, 2003; hereinafter the same) provides that "in case where a corporation retires stocks or equity shares of some shareholders in order to reduce its capital, if a major shareholder who has a special relationship with the company obtains profits from the retirement of such stocks or equity shares, the amount equivalent to such profits shall be deemed to have been donated."

Article 343(1) of the Commercial Act provides that "stocks may be retired only in accordance with the provisions on reduction of capital," and Article 341 of the Commercial Act provides that "the company shall not acquire its own shares on its own account except in case of retirement of shares (Article 1)." In addition, Article 341-2(1) and (3) provides that "the company may acquire its own shares within the limit not exceeding 10/100 of the total number of issued and outstanding shares by taking over the shares of retired directors, etc. so that it may acquire them within the limit not exceeding 10/100 of the total number of issued and outstanding shares, but

Meanwhile, whether the sale of shares constitutes a transfer of shares, or the retirement of shares or the refund of capital, which are assets transaction, should be determined based on the contents of the transaction and the intent of the parties concerned. However, under the substance over form principle, not simply depends on the contents or form of the contract in question, the entire process of the transaction, such as the parties’ intent and the process of concluding the contract, the method of determining the price, and the progress of the transaction, should be actually identified and determined (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Nu3786, Nov. 24, 1992; 2001Du6227, Dec. 26, 2002).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the non-party 2 acquired shares of the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 with the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 with the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 with the non-party 3 with the non-party 1 and with the non-party 2 with the non-party 1 and with the non-party 2 with the non-party 2 with the non-party 1 and with the non-party 2 with the non-party 3 with the non-party 2's view that the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 with the non-party 3 with the non-party 2 with the non-party 1 and with the non-party 2 with the non-party 3 with the non-party 2's view of the fact that the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 with the non-party 3 with the non-party 1 and with the non-party 2's non-party 1 and with the non-party 2'the non-party 2's shares.

In light of the above provisions, legal principles, and records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the act of acquiring stocks or the principle of substantial taxation as otherwise alleged in

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.

4. 4.2.2.2.2. 1.2. 1.2. 2.2: 1. 1.2. 1.2. 2.: 1.2. 2.: 2.2. 2.2.: 3.2. 2.2.