Acquisition of shares under Article 105 (6) of the former Local Tax Act

The acquisition of shares under Article 105 (6) of the former Local Tax Act includes not only the acquisition of shares already issued but also the acquisition of shares by the original shareholder and the acquisition of shares.

Local Tax Act No. 2593, No. 106 (6) of March 12, 1973

Supreme Court Decision 78Nu288 Decided May 15, 1979

Plaintiff 1 and three others

The head of Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City shall be a full-time and full-time.

Seoul High Court Decision 79Gu441 delivered on January 15, 1980

The first Supreme Court Decision 77Nu233 Decided February 14, 1978; the Seoul High Court Decision 76Gu681 Decided August 23, 197; the second Supreme Court Decision 78Nu288 Decided May 15, 1979; the second Supreme Court Decision 78Gu107 Decided June 13, 1978

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff, etc.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the records, it shall be interpreted that the acquisition of shares by the oligopolistic shareholder under Article 23 (3) of the former Local Tax Act should include not only the acquisition by succession of the existing shares but also the case where the original shareholder pays the shares and acquires the shares. Thus, even if the original shareholder becomes an oligopolistic shareholder after the establishment of the corporation, it shall be deemed that the existing assets of the corporation have been acquired at the time of becoming an oligopolistic shareholder, even if the original shareholder becomes an oligopolistic shareholder after the establishment of the corporation. (Supreme Court Decision 78Nu288 delivered on May 15, 1979) The court below held that the oligopolistic shareholder had already been aware of the fact that the plaintiffs acquired the real estate from the establishment of the company on August 29, 1973 and the transfer of the ownership should not be viewed as the transfer of the existing assets of the company, since the original shareholder became an oligopolistic shareholder under Article 105 (6) of the same Act (Supreme Court Decision 78Nu288 delivered on May 15, 1979).

In light of the records, the fact-finding by the court below did not err in the evidence, and its judgment is justified as a result of a party member's opinion.

In this paper, it is not possible to adopt the original judgment from the other independent view above.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Dra-ro (Presiding Justice)