Whether a transfer constitutes a transfer

It shall not be deemed that a transfer has been made because there is only a temporary name in order to recover the funds raised as the purchase price of stocks and to secure investment in patent rights, etc.

Article 94 of the Income Tax Act: Scope of Transfer Income

1. The Defendant’s imposition disposition of KRW 451,983,290 and securities transaction tax of KRW 20,962,040 against the Plaintiff on April 1, 2003 shall be revoked, respectively.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

On January 20, 200, the Defendant calculated the total amount of KRW 4,31,00,000 ( KRW 71,000,000, KRW 71,000, KRW 461,00, KRW 360, KRW 400 for each of the above shares, KRW 71,000 for KRW 16,260 per share and transferred the shares to ○○○○○○ on the same day (the name was changed on May 31, 200; hereinafter the same shall apply) from ○○○, etc. on January 20, 200, based on the premise that the Plaintiff acquired KRW 71,00 per share of KRW 16,260 per share and transferred the shares to ○○○○○ on the same day, the transfer value of the shares was 4,331,000,000 for each of the above shares, KRW 361,00,000 for each of the following gains.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, A1-1, 3, 1, 2, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

(a) Facts of recognition;

(1) On November 17, 1999, ○ Food Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○ Food”) entered into a contract with ○○○○○ (hereinafter “○○○”) to transfer the technology of manufacturing food waste and living wastewater purification facilities to ○○○○ (hereinafter “○○”) and to pay 5% of the sales amount of ○○ Food to ○○○ (hereinafter “○○”). At the time of the above contract, the Plaintiff, a representative director of ○○ Food, a shareholder, an executive director, and an shareholder of ○○○ Food, participated in the said contract, and the Plaintiff agreed to assign KRW 160,000 among 400,000,000, the initial capital amount of KRW 500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 shares.

On November 30, 1999, ○○ filed an application for patent right to ○○ Technology after the contract was concluded.

(2) The Plaintiff, ○○○, and ○○○○○ failed to reach an agreement related to additional management conditions, thereby preventing the Plaintiff from carrying out the ○○ business any longer based on ○○ Food. On December 9, 1999, the Plaintiff acquired the ○○ Company and tried to carry out the ○○ business, but eventually failed in the acquisition of the said Company.

(3) From December 18, 1999, the Plaintiff concluded a provisional contract to acquire 246,000 shares of the non-party company (79.87% shares issued by the non-party company) from Park○, etc., a major shareholder of the non-party company, by acquiring 4 billion won (16,260 won per share) from the non-party company, on January 3, 2000.

(4) On January 11, 200, the Plaintiff, ○○○, and ○○○, upon acquiring a non-party company, which had already been registered in the Korea Securities Dealers Association, and subsequently promoting the business, changed the contents related to ○○ Food from among the terms and conditions of the contract dated November 17, 199 and December 9, 199, to the non-party company, and agreed to distribute the shares to be acquired for the acquisition of the non-party company at the ratio of KRW 32.46%, ○○ 32.46%, ○○ 32.46%, and ○○ 6.49%, but the agreement was not changed to the effect that the Plaintiff raised KRW 800 million.

However, since ○○○ did not contribute funds to acquire the shares of the non-party company after the above agreement, the Plaintiff made a contribution to the funds that the non-party company would have made. Accordingly, it was inevitable for ○○○ to re-resolution the share distribution ratio between ○○○○, and as a result, ○○ decided to hold 71,000 shares of the non-party company (23.5% shares of the total issued shares).

However, in relation to the ○○ business, prior ○○ decided to contribute all the production processes and types related thereto, intangible information, knowledge, etc. (hereinafter “patents, etc.”). Since prior ○○○’s capital was the Plaintiff’s financing, the Plaintiff acquired Nonparty Company’s stocks with its own funds and transferred 71,000 shares to prior ○○○○○, but prior ○○ transferred the patent rights, etc. to the Plaintiff on a group of occasions, and the Plaintiff again transferred the patent rights, etc. to the Nonparty Company at KRW 1,154,460,000, which is equivalent to the acquisition value of the 71,000 shares upon completion of the acquisition procedure of the Nonparty Company.

(5) On January 3, 200, pursuant to a family agreement, 2000, Park○ and three other parties, who are the major shareholders of the non-party company, transfer 21,375 shares to the plaintiff on January 20, 200 as indicated in the table below, and 34,625 shares, respectively, and the plaintiff paid 4 billion won of the price of the above shares to Park○○○, along with 8 persons, including Gyeong○ et al., on the date of the above transfer, to the representative of the transferor ○○, along with 8 persons, including Gyeong○ et al., for the above transfer, KRW 4 billion on the date of the above transfer, KRW 90 million on January 31, 200, KRW 2 billion on February 9, 200, and KRW 700 million on February 28, 2000.

transferor

A transferee

Number of Stocks

Price

○ Kim

67,760

1,101,77,600

○ Kim

87,780

1,427,302,800

○ ○

16,940

275,444,400

Park ○

38,895

632,432,700

Park ○

○ ○

1,250

20,325,000

Park ○

○○

14,000

27,680,000

Park ○

○ ○

1,875

30,487,500

Park ○

○ ○

625

10,162,500

Park ○

○ ○

625

10,162,500

Park ○

○ ○

625

10,162,500

Park ○

○ ○

15,000

243,900,000

Park ○

○ ○

625

10,162,500

Total

246,000

4,000,000,000

(6) On January 20, 200, the Plaintiff agreed to acquire a patent right, etc. against ○○○, and entered into a contract to pay 71,000 shares of the non-party company that he acquired in return to ○○○ as acquisition cost. In the event that ○○ violated the contract, the Plaintiff agreed to return the said shares to the Plaintiff or compensate for damages equivalent to the amount converted into the market price of the said shares at the time of the contract.

(7) On January 26, 200, 1,000 shares of the non-party company 71,00 shares were purchased in the name of the Financial Supervisory Commission, the Korea Stock Exchange, and the Korea Securities Dealers Association (the 1,024,530,000 shares of the non-party company and the 1,024,530,000 shares (the 224,530,000 shares borrowed, the 80,000,000 shares). On January 28, 200, the plaintiff also reported to the Financial Supervisory Service the 246,00 shares of the non-party company owned by the non-party company 140,375 shares, the 1,875 shares, the 1,250 shares, the 1,000 shares, the 1,000 shares, the 1,000 shares, the 1,005 shares, each of the acquisition of the shares of the non-party company 1, the 5 shares.

(8) On March 30, 200, the acquisition procedure of the non-party company was completed, the Plaintiff transferred the patent right, etc. against the non-party company to the non-party company at KRW 1,154,460,000, equivalent to the acquisition price of the non-party company’s shares at KRW 71,000.

[Reasons for Recognition] A, 4, 5, A6-1, 2, A7-1 through 13, A8-1, 2, 3, A9, 10, A1-1 through 4, A12 through 17, A18-1 through 4, A19-1 through 4, A20, A21-1, 21-3, and the purport of the entire pleadings

C. Determination

According to the above facts, it can be seen that the Plaintiff acquired ○○○○○○ Company’s shares from Nonparty 1’s ○○○○○○○○○ Company’s ○○○○○○○○ Company’s ○○○○○○ Company’s ○○○○○○ Company’s ○○○○○○ Company’s ○○○○○○○ Company’s ○○○○○ Company’s ○○○○○○ Company’s ○○○○○ Company’s ○○○○ Company’s ○○○ Company’s ○○○ Company’s ○○○○ Company’s ○○○ Company’s ○○○ Company’s ○○○○ Company’s ○○ Company’s ○○○ Company’s ○○ Company’s ○○ Company’s ○○ Company’s ○○ Company’s ○○ Company’s ○○ Company’s ○○ Company’s ○○ Company’s ○.

Therefore, each of the above dispositions by the Defendant, based on the premise that the Plaintiff acquired 71,00 shares of the non-party company and transferred the shares to ○○○○, is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since each of the dispositions of this case by the defendant is unlawful, the plaintiff's claim seeking its revocation is justified, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it respectively.