beta
Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit
Seoul Administrative Court 2013Guhap25061 ( December 23, 2014)
Case Number of the previous trial
Tax Tribunal 2013Seoul Northern272 ( July 12, 2013)
Title
It does not constitute justifiable grounds for not reporting the gift tax base.
Summary
The issue of this case’s capital increase with rights does not exist under the third party allocation method, and since there is a difference between the publication date and the payment date of stock price, it cannot be deemed that there exists a justifiable reason for not reporting.
Related statutes
Article 48 of the Framework Act on National Taxes: Public offering and sale of securities under Article 2-4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Securities and Exchange Act which donated profits from capital increase under Article 39 of the Inheritance Tax
Cases
Seoul High Court 2015Nu32843 Revocation of Disposition Imposing Gift Tax
Plaintiff and appellant
BOO
Defendant, Appellant
Head of Yeongdeungpo Tax Office
Judgment of the first instance court
December 23, 2014
Conclusion of Pleadings
July 22, 2015
Imposition of Judgment
December 23, 2015
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
the Gu Office's place of service and place of service
1. Purport of claim
The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 122,464,190 (including additional tax) on the Plaintiff on April 16, 2013 shall be revoked.
2. Purport of appeal
Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the order to revoke the below shall be revoked.In the disposition of imposition of KRW 122,464,190 (including additional tax) of the gift tax of April 16, 2013 by the defendant against the plaintiff on April 16, 2013, the part against the defendant shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
The reasoning of this court's decision is as follows: (a) it is the first instance court's reasoning, with the exception of adding "No. 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act" to "No. 3) the issue of this case's capital increase by the method of allocation to a third party does not exist; and (b) the issue of capital increase by the method of public disclosure and payment of stock price corresponds to the date of public announcement, so it cannot be deemed that there is a comparison of opinion
2. Conclusion
The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.