Seoul High Court Decision 200Na1448 delivered on August 1, 200

The head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and one other (Law Firm Han-ro, Attorneys Hai-ro, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

March 2, 2018

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2017Guhap56483 decided September 22, 2017

1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The imposition of acquisition tax of 197,50,260, registration tax of 445,458,550, special agricultural and fishing villages tax of 19,750,750,410, local education tax of 83,97,660, and acquisition tax of 4,860,090, registration tax of 10,94,640, special rural development tax of 485,90,90, and special rural development tax of 2,063,250, which the head of Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government imposed on the Plaintiff on December 2, 2014 by the head of Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the imposition of acquisition tax of 4,860,090, registration tax of 10,94,640, special rural development

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

This decision is based on Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, with the exception of adding the following:

○ 9.2 The following shall be added to the two pages:

In the latter part of Article 46(2) of the former Corporate Tax Act, where a corporation established by division (referring to a merged corporation where a corporation established by division merges with another corporation) which has included the amount equivalent to division evaluation marginal profit under Article 46(1) of the former Corporate Tax Act in deductible expenses discontinues the business succeeded from a divided corporation within 3 years from the beginning date of the business year following the business year in which the date of the registration date of the division falls, the amount included in deductible expenses shall be included in gross income in calculating the income amount for the business year in which the date of the discontinuance falls. In this case, where a corporation established by division succeeds the business succeeded from a divided corporation again, it shall not be deemed a discontinuance of business (in light of the above provisions, it shall not be deemed that the case where a corporation established by division succeeds to the business succeeded from a divided corporation again, it shall not be deemed that the criteria for determining the continuation of business succeeded to by the divided corporation are stipulated in Article 46(1) of the former Corporate Tax Act in the latter part of Article 46(1) of the former Corporate Tax Act.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jae-young (Presiding Judge)