2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A, the plaintiff, and the JungB (the plaintiff's wife), and thisCC entered into a stock acquisition agreement between the non-party DD industry (hereinafter "D industry"), and the non-party DD industry (hereinafter "D industry") on November 19, 2005 with the non-party D industry and the non-party KimF, and filed a return on and pay capital gains tax on December 19, 2005 after the notification of stock transfer and the entry of change of shareholders in the list of shareholders, and on February 28, 2006. The shareholders composition of DD industry before and after the transfer of shares are as follows:

B. The D industry adopted a resolution on November 19, 2007 to reduce the capital at a temporary shareholders' meeting, and December 17, 2007.

As above, 416 and 200 shares acquired were incinerated.

C. The Defendant determined that DD industry acquired its own stocks for the purpose of capital reduction, and issued the instant disposition that corrected and notified the Plaintiff’s transfer margin on the Plaintiff’s stocks as deemed to fall under the constructive dividend under Article 17(2) of the Income Tax Act, and on February 10, 201, the Plaintiff issued the instant disposition that corrected and notified the global income tax of 00 won for the year 2005 (the Plaintiff’s total income tax of 416,200 won was deducted as already paid tax amount in the capital gains tax paid by the Plaintiff).

D. On April 20, 201, the Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal on April 20, 201, and on October 13, 2011, the request was dismissed.

[Recognized Facts] The entire purport of the arguments, as described in the facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 4, 8, 10, 12, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18 (each defense included), and Eul 1 and 2.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The transfer of shares between the Plaintiff and D industry is a mere sale and purchase of shares, which is separate transaction from the retirement of shares for which two years have passed thereafter, and the Plaintiff did not gain any economic benefit from the retirement of the shares. The instant disposition was made on the premise that the acquisition of the shares by D industry was for the purpose of reduction of capital, and is unlawful, and is contrary to the legislative intent of imposing taxation on dividends in that the Plaintiff did not have an intention to avoid taxation on dividends, such as the Plaintiff’s lawful return and payment of capital gains tax, and is unlawful since the Plaintiff had already paid both capital gains tax and securities transaction tax on the transfer of shares.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Whether the sale of shares constitutes a transfer of shares, or the retirement of shares or the refund of capital, which are assets transaction, is a matter of interpretation of legal act, and should be determined based on the contents and the intent of the parties concerned. However, under the substance over form principle, it is not simply dependent on the content or form of the current agreement, but should be determined based on the overall process of the transaction, such as the parties’ intent and the conclusion of the agreement, the method of determining the price, and the progress of the transaction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du19628, Oct. 28, 2010). Generally, in the case of a transaction in which the acquisition and disposal of shares increases or decreases net assets, it constitutes a profit and loss transaction subject to taxation, but it is reasonable to deem the acquisition of shares as a capital transaction because it has the nature of the refund of the capital (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Nu13571, Sept. 22, 192).

(2) In the instant case, and in accordance with the evidence and relevant laws and regulations, the following facts are recognized.

may be held.

① Articles 341 and 341-2 of the former Commercial Act (amended by Act No. 10600, Apr. 14, 201; hereinafter the same) are limited to cases where a company is able to acquire its own stocks on its own account, and except for those cases, they are prohibited from acquiring its own stocks. In the case of D industry (Article 341 subparagraph 1 of the same Act), it is stated that there is no reason for the Plaintiff to acquire its own stocks except for those when it is intended to retire its stocks, and that it has been acquired for the purpose of stock retirement in the audit report of D industry.

② Articles 341-2(3) and 342 of the former Commercial Act provide that a company shall dispose of its own stocks within a considerable period of time, if it acquires them for reasons other than incineration, but DD industry shall hold its own stocks for two years without disposing of 416,200 shares it acquired from the Plaintiff, and reduce its capital by failing to dispose of them without compensation, and there is no trace that it intended to dispose of the said stocks to a third party for the said holding period.

③ At the time of the acquisition of shares, the Plaintiff was a shareholder and the representative director who actually holds all shares issued by D acids.

(3) In light of the fact that the DD industry acquires its own stocks for consideration and takes the capital reduction procedure by stock retirement, and that the company is limited to the case where it can acquire its own stocks, the DD industry is deemed to have acquired its own stocks for the purpose of stock retirement. In addition, in the case of this case, when the shareholder transfers its stocks to a company that is not a third party, it is common to trade the stocks with the knowledge of the purpose of acquiring the stocks of the issuing company, and in the case of this case, the Plaintiff was the representative director of the DD industry that the Plaintiff owned most stocks issued by the DD industry, and it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff also transferred its stocks as part of stock retirement. The circumstances cited

(4) Therefore, since the transfer price of stocks received by the Plaintiff from D industry is "money acquired by the Plaintiff due to the retirement of stocks or the reduction of capital under Article 17 (2) 1 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8144 of Dec. 30, 2006), it is legitimate for the Defendant to consider the Plaintiff's transfer margin as deemed income from dividend of stocks, and to make the instant disposition accordingly.

(5) Regarding this, the Plaintiff did not have the purpose of evading taxation on the dividend income, and therefore, the instant disposition contravenes the legislative intent of imposing taxation on the dividend income, but the purpose of evading taxation is not the requirement of deemed dividend, and as seen earlier, the Plaintiff paid the transfer income tax by paying the transfer income tax even after transferring the stocks as part of stock retirement. In addition, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant disposition was double taxation, and as seen earlier, the transfer income tax paid by the Plaintiff was deducted as the already paid tax amount.

The above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.