logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2017.04.12 2016구단59976
양도소득세 부과처분 취소 청구의 소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff owned common shares and preferential shares of a stock-listed corporation B (hereinafter “instant company”) under the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (hereinafter “Capital Markets Act”). However, the total market value of the instant company’s shares was at least ten billion won, including common shares and preferential shares owned by the Plaintiff as of the end of each business year in 2009, 2010, and 201, and the Plaintiff’s husband, 2, and 2, 1, and 2, 1, within the scope of the Plaintiff’s specially related parties under Article 1-2(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes (hereinafter “specially related parties”).

B. The Defendant disposed of each of the instant shares of the Plaintiff in 2010, 2011, and 2012 and rendered a disposition of each of the instant shares to “income accrued from the transfer of shares of a major shareholder who owns shares of at least ten billion won in total at the market price” under Article 94(1)3 (a) of the former Income Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 12852, Dec. 23, 2014); Article 157(4)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Income Tax Act (hereinafter “former Income Tax Act and the Enforcement Decree thereof”). On August 1, 2015, the Defendant rendered a respective disposition of KRW 16,087,020 for the Plaintiff, capital gains tax of KRW 11,824,210 for the year 201; capital gains tax of KRW 47,489,640 for the year 2012 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on November 6, 2015, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on June 3, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] No. 1-3, Gap evidence No. 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that “stocks” means only common shares, and even if not, whether a “large shareholder” is a “large shareholder”.

arrow