증여세부과처분취소
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. All appeals costs are borne by the Plaintiffs.
purport, purport, and.
The grounds for the court’s explanation concerning this case, such as accepting the judgment of the court of first instance, are as follows; the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance is amended; the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance added “related Acts and subordinate statutes” to the annexed part of “related Acts and subordinate statutes” of this judgment; and the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, other than additional determination as to the plaintiffs’ assertion as to the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance (including each of the annexed parts, but excluding excluding 3. conclusion) is the same as that of the judgment of the
Under the main sentence of 3, each "No. 11609" shall be deemed to be "No. 7010" respectively.
6. It shall add “(s)” to the right side of each “including each number” of the 6th parallel.
7 The first three parallels “12 billion won” to “4 parallels “.......” to “a fact that the dividends have not been paid before the interim dividends of the total amount of 12.9 billion won in 2016 may be recognized.”
Under 7, on the right side of the “facts”, “E is added to the fact that the sum of the corporate tax of KRW 88,515,490 is in arrears as of February 18, 2018, which is after dissolution.”
7 Under the 7th page, the phrase “3 transcript” (including each number), “3 and 11”, shall be rounded up to 4 parallels.
Following the 7th 3th 4th e.g., “In light of the circumstances known from these facts,” the phrase “this fact of recognition is considered to read in light of the following circumstances, i.e., Gap evidence Nos. 14, 15, and Eul evidence Nos. 13 and 14, by integrating the overall purport of the pleadings:
8 The term "meetinging procedure" in the 8th three parallels shall be close to the term "Procedures for composition".
8 The Plaintiff’s title trust of the instant shares to the instant nominal owner solely for the following reasons. It is difficult to understand that Plaintiff A merely held the title trust of the instant shares to the instant nominal owner.