The legitimacy of the assertion that the transfer of shares by subrogation was made without compensation;

It is recognized that the company paid the company's debt by subrogation with the company's shares owned by the plaintiff equivalent to the amount of the claim and the claim, and according to the above fact of recognition, it is reasonable to deem that the shares in this case were evaluated as KRW 391,

Article 94 (Scope of Transfer Income Tax)

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposing capital gains tax of KRW 49,317,840 for the Plaintiff on July 1, 2004 shall be revoked.

1. Circumstances of dispositions;

The defendant did not report or pay the transfer income tax, etc. upon the transfer of the non-party company's non-listed stocks 17,390 shares (hereinafter "the shares of this case") registered in the name of the plaintiff on June 2002 and around October 2002, when the plaintiff transferred the shares of this case to ○○○○ (hereinafter "○○○") on the list of changes in the shares of the Korea ○○ Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "the non-party company"), and the acquisition value was 8,695,00 won (i.e., 17,390 won) and the acquisition value was 49,317,840 won (including the additional tax of this case) on July 1, 2004, the defendant assessed the shares of this case based on the actual transaction value and assessed the shares of this case to 391,275,000 won.

(Reasons for Recognition: Statement Nos. 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, and 3

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Although the Plaintiff became aware of the transfer of the instant shares to ○○○○, but did not raise any objection thereto, it cannot be said that the Plaintiff consented to the transfer of the instant shares. Therefore, the Plaintiff did not transfer the instant shares.

(2) The Plaintiff transferred the instant shares to the non-party company without compensation. Since the non-party company transferred the instant shares to ○○○ as advertising price, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have transferred the instant shares to ○○○○.

(3) The Plaintiff transferred the instant shares to ○○○○ in KRW 500 per share, thus, did not incur capital gains.

(4) Therefore, the disposition of this case, based on the premise that the Plaintiff transferred the shares of this case to ○○○○ for consideration or that the transfer margin occurred, is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

○ Income Tax Act (Scope of Transfer Income) Article 94 (amended by Act No. 7837 of Dec. 31, 2005)

(1) Transfer income shall be the following incomes generated in the relevant year:

3. Income accruing from transfer of stocks or investment shares falling under any of the following items (including preemptive rights; hereafter referred to as "stocks, etc." in this Chapter):

(c) Stocks of corporations other than stock-listed corporations or Association-registered corporations.

Article 96 (Transfer Price)

(2) The transfer value referred to in Article 94 (1) 3 and 4 shall be based on the actual transaction value at the time of transfer of the assets concerned.

Article 97 (Calculation of Necessary Expenses for Transfer Income)

(1) In calculating gains on transfer of a resident, necessary expenses to be deducted from the transfer value shall be as follows:

1. Acquisition value:

(b) In cases of assets falling under Article 94 (1) 3 and 4, the actual transaction price required for the acquisition of the relevant assets;

C. Determination

As acknowledged earlier, as long as the shares of this case were registered in the name of the plaintiff in light of the statement of changes in the shares of the non-party company, and the shares of this case were transferred to ○○○ upon around 2002, it shall be presumed that the plaintiff acquired the ownership of this case and transferred it at a cost to ○○○○. Accordingly, if the non-party company arbitrarily disposes of the shares of this case without the plaintiff's consent or transferred the shares of this case to the non-party company without compensation to the non-party company as alleged by the plaintiff, it is difficult to believe that each of the statements of No. 5-1, No. 1, No. 6, and testimony of ○○ and Ma○○ are consistent with the above statements,

Rather, according to the statements in Gap's evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 3-1, 4, 5, 6, Eul evidence 7-1, 2, 8-2, 9, 10 each evidence 1,2, and 1,2, and 3 of Eul evidence 3-2, Eul evidence 7-8, Eul evidence 9, and Eul evidence 10-10, the non-party company made an advertisement with ○○○ on October 1, 200. The non-party company made an advertisement with the non-party company's newspaper issued by ○○○, and the non-party company made an advertisement with the non-party company's share to pay the non-party company's share as advertising fee 68 times, and both parties made an advertisement to ○○○, 390,275,000 won each of the above shares was found to have been transferred to ○○○,000 won each of the above shares (the plaintiff's debt 2050,29,27000).

Therefore, the instant disposition that the Plaintiff calculated and imposed capital gains tax by deeming that the instant shares were transferred to ○○○○ in KRW 22,500 per share, is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the revocation of the disposition of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Seoul High Court Decision 2007Nu24205 (Law No. 04.01)]

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 49,317,840 against the plaintiff on July 1, 2004 shall be revoked.

The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is that "(i) No. 8 of the second instance judgment (i.e., KRW 17,390, X22,590)" (i.e., KRW 17,390,X22,50) is "(i.e., KRW 17,390)", and (ii) No. 4 of the first instance judgment "the stocks of this case to the non-party company" are "the stocks of this case" as "the stocks of this case", and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning for the first instance judgment, and therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.