Whether a disposition imposing gift tax on the gift tax on the gift tax transferred without compensation is legitimate

The disposition imposing gift tax is legitimate on the ground that there is no evidence to prove the fact that a claim for provisional collection is paid because of the acquisition of a claim for provisional collection and there is no evidence to prove that there is no substantial value of the claim for provisional collection, and there is no obvious evidence to prove

Article 2 (Gift Tax Taxables)

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The disposition of imposition of KRW 110,630,580, which the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on March 2, 2007, shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 2, 2007, the Defendant imposed KRW 110,630,580 on the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff received KRW 524,045,936 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant provisional deposit claims”) from the Hongnam (the representative director of the non-party company at the time) in the process of acquiring the ○○○○○○ Embro (the trade name prior to the change on August 31, 2006 is '○○ Electronic Co., Ltd.'; hereinafter referred to as 'the non-party company's 's 'the non-party company's 's 's 'the non-party company') the provisional deposit claims against the non-party company without compensation.

B. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal on April 16, 2007. However, the National Tax Tribunal dismissed the said appeal on August 16, 2007.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 8-1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

The defendant asserted that the disposition of this case is lawful, since the plaintiff received the claim of this case from Hongnam without compensation or sufficient consideration. Accordingly, the plaintiff asserted that the disposition of this case is lawful. The plaintiff, ① because the above claim of provisional deposit was already included in the acquisition price of the non-party company that the plaintiff paid to Hongnam, the plaintiff was fully paid and received the claim of this case. ② The plaintiff already acquired the non-party company in the state of capital erosion, ② the claim of this case is more losses than the payment of corporate tax, value-added tax, bonus, etc. after acquiring the non-party company in the state of capital erosion, and thus, the defendant's disposition of this case is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 2 (Gift Tax Taxables)

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) On June 8, 2006, the Plaintiff prepared a contract to transfer all business operated by the non-party company to the transferee company of this case as the representative director of the ○○ D&D D&D (hereinafter referred to as “the transferee company of this case”). The main contents of the contract related thereto (Evidence 1-1) and attached agreements (Evidence 1-2) are as follows.

(A) The subject matter of transfer and acquisition between the Nonparty Company and the transferee Company, the transferor, is a contractual relationship, customer relationship, management organization, trade name, trade secret, sales network, authorization and permission, business rights, etc., which have economic value related to the business assets or business activities owned by the Nonparty Company.

(B) The transferor shall transfer the land of 694 square meters to the transferee of the land for a factory in Busan Metropolitan City ○○-dong 889, which is owned by the person Hongnam, and the land price shall be KRW 300,000,000.

(C) The transferee shall accept 20,000 shares of the transferor at KRW 7,500 per share, and the price shall be used for counter-inform of the lease deposit obligation on the factory site leased by the transferor to the non-party company, and the lease contract with the Hongnam individual and the non-party company shall be terminated.

(D) The non-party company’s debt 529,945,235 won against Hongnam, which existed on the financial statements at the end of 2005, is deposited in the account of the law firm designated by both parties until June 23, 2006 after the completion of the actual inspection, to treat the above provisional debt against Hongnam.

(2) On June 23, 2006, the Plaintiff drafted a written contract to modify the terms of the transfer/acquisition agreement between the representative director of the non-party company and the Hongnam on June 8, 2006. The main contents of the written contract (Evidence A2) and the side agreement are as follows.

(A) The object of transfer and acquisition between the non-party company and the transferee company of this case, the transferor, includes all tangible and intangible assets owned or acquired by the non-party company in operating the business as a whole owned by the non-party company.

(B) The transferee individual purchased 750,000,000 won from July 4, 2006 the remainder of 21,000,000 won from July 17, 2006 to 36 months. The transferee individual shall receive the above 529,00,000,000 won for the above 889, Busan Shipping Daegu, Busan, 89,000,000 won for the factory site owned by the transferor, and 157,000 square meters for the same 898,000 square meters for the factory site (hereinafter referred to as the “instant factory site”). In the case of an agreement, the above 40,000,000 won out of the purchase price shall be paid to the transferor in installments for 36 months from August 17, 206, and at the same time, the registration of ownership transfer shall be completed for the above transferor’s land site, and the intermediate payment shall be paid to the above transferor by 36,00,06.6.

(C) The Plaintiff paid KRW 529,00,000 out of the above purchase price, thereby transferring the transferor’s shares in respect of the non-party company to the transferee without compensation. However, in the back agreement, the Plaintiff’s succession to the obligation to refund the lease deposit to the non-party company, which is an individual debt of Hong Kong, should instead take over the non-party company’s shares 19,000 shares, which is 95% of the non-party company’s shares and pay to the Plaintiff in cash.

(D) In the name of the transferor’s representative director Hongnam, KRW 524,045,936, which remains on the current account book, shall be converted to the ownership of the transferee and shall not be demanded to repay the provisional deposit. The above provisional deposit claims remaining on the financial statements shall be deemed to have been disposed of half of the provisional deposit claims, while the claim for the provisional deposit claims shall be deemed to have been accepted by the plaintiff.

D. Determination

(1) A party to a contract of transfer or acquisition under the above contract

On June 8, 2006, the Plaintiff drafted a written contract concerning the acquisition by transfer of the non-party company's representative director Hongnam and the non-party company's representative director as the representative director of the transferee company of this case. On June 23, 2006, the Plaintiff drafted a new contract under which the above contract was partially amended and the final agreement was made (hereinafter "the transfer/acquisition contract of this case"). During the process of the transfer/acquisition contract of this case, the Plaintiff asserts that the transferor and the transferee are the non-party company and the non-party company as the transferee company of this case, but the Plaintiff

Therefore, with respect to whether the actual party to the transfer/acquisition contract of this case is the Plaintiff and Hongnam, or whether it is the Plaintiff or its representative director, the title of the transfer/acquisition contract of this case includes the “business transfer/acquisition” (Evidence 1-1-2) or “transfer/acquisition of the company” (Evidence 2), and each party’s column includes the name of the Plaintiff and Hongnam as the representative director of each company and the name of the non-party company, and the transfer/acquisition contract of this case also appears to be the transfer/acquisition contract of this case between the transferee company and the non-party company. On the other hand, in addition to all types of business assets owned by the non-party company, the transfer/acquisition contract of this case includes the land of this case owned by the non-party company, the non-party company’s shares of the non-party company and the non-party company’s shares of 19,000 (hereinafter referred to as the “non-party company’s shares”) which are not included in the non-party company’s owner of this case. However, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff and the transferee company’s shares of this case (the non-party 2).

(2) Determination as to the assertion that the instant provisional payment claim was fully paid

In full view of the purport of pleadings as to Gap's 1-2, Gap's 1-2, Gap's 2, 3, 4, Eul's 9-1, 2, Eul's 2, 3, and 4, the plaintiff agreed to purchase the factory site of this case owned by Hongnam on June 23, 2006 and pay 750,000 won to the non-party company's 20,000 shares issued by Hongnam on the same day (20,000 shares issued by the non-party company's 20,000 shares issued by the non-party company's 20,000 shares issued by the non-party company's 20,000 shares issued by the non-party company's Hongnam on the same day (the non-party company's total shares issued by 0,000 shares issued by the non-party company's 1,000 shares issued by Hongnam on the above 100,000 shares acquired the above bonds.

(3) Determination as to the assertion that there is no property value of the instant provisional deposit claims

Inasmuch as there is no clear evidence to acknowledge that the claim for the provisional collection of this case against the non-party company was not real property value at the time of the acquisition by transfer of the claim for the provisional collection of this case, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is not accepted (In addition, the disposition of this case, which is the disposition of this case, is not illegal merely because the provisional collection of this case was immediately disposed of 0 on the account books of the non-party company on December 31, 2007).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.