beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff, B, the Plaintiff’s mother, C, and D, the Plaintiff’s siblings, held the total of KRW 17,157,150,000 (2,036,280,000 among these shares owned by the Plaintiff), total of KRW 14,593,615,00 (2,08,860,000 among these shares owned by the Plaintiff), total of KRW 14,90,46,00 (2,08,860,000 among these shares owned by the Plaintiff) at the end of 2013, total of KRW 14,90,46,00 (2,941,90,501,50 among these shares owned by the Plaintiff).
B. The Plaintiff transferred 1,300 shares of the non-party company it held in 2012, 4,498 shares in 2013, and 1,711 shares in 2014, but did not report the transfer income tax accordingly.
C. Pursuant to Article 94(1)3 (a) of the Income Tax Act and Article 157(4)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24356, Feb. 15, 2013), the director of the tax office having jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s shares owned by Nonparty Company B, C, and D, on the ground that the special relationship under Article 1-2(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes exists, he determined that the Plaintiff’s transfer constitutes a major shareholder of the stock-listed corporation specified as taxable subject to capital gains tax and the Plaintiff’s transfer is subject to capital gains tax.
Accordingly, on August 1, 2015, the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the transfer income tax for the year 2012, as indicated in attached Table 1, notified the Plaintiff of KRW 78,876,130, and KRW 261,270,281, and KRW 91,382,015 of the transfer income tax for the year 2014, as indicated in attached Table 1, and accordingly, the head of Seocho-gu notified the Plaintiff of KRW 7,887,610, and KRW 26,127,020, and KRW 9,138,200 for the transfer income tax for the year 2014, as stated in attached Table 1.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). E.
The plaintiff was under the procedure of the previous trial.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1-4 evidence, Eul 1-1.