저가양수에서 양수자가 그 거래상대방의 사용인 등에 해당하더라도 거래상대방을 ‘특수관계에 있는 자’에 해당한다고 볼 수는 없음[국패]
Seoul Administrative Court-2014-Gu Partnership-73135 ( November 19, 2015)
Even if the transferee falls under an employee of the other party to the transaction in a low-price acquisition, it cannot be viewed as an "person having a special relationship with the other party".
Inasmuch as a transferor or transferee at a high-priced transfer falls under an employee of the other party to the transaction, etc., it cannot be deemed that the other party to the transaction constitutes an employee of the other party to the transaction, etc. under the above provision (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Du11990, Sept. 12, 2013, etc.).
Article 35 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act
2015Nu71848 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax
Park AA
Head of Yeongdeungpo Tax Office
September 1, 2016
October 6, 2016
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Cheong-gu Office
1. Purport of claim
The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 2,126,279,029 of the gift tax on April 25, 2008 against the Plaintiff on September 10, 2012 and the imposition of KRW 1,909,00,000 of the gift tax on December 8, 2008.
2. Purport of appeal
The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance that exceeds the scope of the order to revoke the below shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed. The part that exceeds KRW 2,126,279,029 among the disposition imposing gift tax of KRW 3,479,017,746 against the plaintiff on April 25, 2012 and the part that exceeds KRW 2,126,279,029 among the disposition imposing gift tax of KRW 2,94,075,60 among the disposition imposing gift tax of KRW 1,90,000 on the plaintiff on December 8, 2008 shall be revoked, respectively.
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, and it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal or addition of some contents as follows. Thus, it is cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420
Parts to be dried or added.
1) The first Defendant imposed upon the Plaintiff KRW 3,479,017,746 as gift tax of April 25, 2008, and KRW 2,94,075,60 as gift tax of December 8, 2008, respectively, on the Plaintiff. However, the additional tax portion was revoked ex officio in the trial, and the Plaintiff reduced the purport of the claim as above.
○ The second part of the second part of the judgment of the first instance is "Gu Aa" as "Gu AA".
The following shall be added to the fourth fifth sentence of the judgment of the first instance.
Then, the Defendant revoked ex officio the portion equivalent to the amount of each additional tax included in each of the above dispositions on December 21, 2015, and, on April 25, 2008, only KRW 2,126,279,029 for the gift tax on April 25, 2008, and only KRW 1,909,000 for the gift tax on December 8, 2008, respectively.
○ From 5th judgment of the first instance court to 7th judgment shall be deleted.
○ Decision 200,000 US$12,500,000,000,000 in 20th decision of the first instance court.
○ “former BB” in Part 6 of the Judgment of the first instance court is deleted.
Pursuant to the sixth Schedule of the Judgment of the first instance court, the "A" in Part 5 is regarded as the "Gu A".
The "Article 26 (4) 3 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act" of the 13th judgment of the first instance court is the "Article 26 (4) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act".
○ The second sentence of the 12th judgment of the court of first instance is "tradeal volume" as "tradeal subject."
○, the 15th judgment of the first instance court, "New BB" of the 19th judgment, shall be "New BB".
○ The Supreme Court Decision 16th 17th 16th 16th 17th 200 decided that a claim will be transferred to another person.
○ The first instance court’s 17-18 of the 18th trial and 22 of the 17-18th trial and the 1-2th trial.
The term "low-price transfer method" is different from "low-price transfer method".
2. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted for the reasons, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just for the conclusion, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.