early 2011west 2990 ( December 06, 2011)

The gift tax is illegal because the third party considers the source of share payment as the source of share payment and the gift tax is judged as the share owner.

Although share subscription was made under the name of the Plaintiff, it is merely a part of the amount paid by the Plaintiff in view of the source of share payment, and it is reasonable to deem that the excess amount is the actual owner of the outstanding shares.

2011Guhap42925. Partial revocation of a disposition imposing gift tax

Park XX

Head of Seocho Tax Office

June 1, 2012

June 22, 2012

1. On May 2, 2011, the Defendant’s imposition of gift tax on the Plaintiff as specified in the separate sheet No. 1, which was made against the Plaintiff on May 2, 201, revoked the excess of each amount indicated in the separate sheet No. 2, each column

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 1/10 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

The imposition of each gift tax on May 2, 201 by the Defendant against the Plaintiff is revoked on May 2, 201.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Article XX (hereinafter referred to as the "PPPP") provides capital increase in the amount of 00 won per share of 2,045,965 shares on April 30, 2007 to a third party. Among them, 116,54 shares (hereinafter referred to as the "new shares in this case") have been allocated in the name of the Plaintiff. However, the director of the Central District Tax Office of China around March 30, 201 conducted an investigation on changes in the shares of the PPPPP. On April 30, 207. The aforementioned investigation results show that the value of new shares allocated on April 30, 207 under the old Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8828, Dec. 31, 2007; hereinafter referred to as the "Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act") has been allocated at a lower price than the theoretical value of each share, thereby notifying the Defendant of the profits of 00 won -00 won -500 won -60

C. Accordingly, on May 2, 2011, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff received KRW 000 (including additional taxes, and the difference between the aggregate amount is based on the National Treasury Fractional Calculation Act) from the existing shareholders through the above capital increase with respect to the donation of KRW 116,54). Accordingly, on May 2, 2011, the Defendant decided and notified each of the following dispositions (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each of the instant dispositions”).

D. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on July 30, 201, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on December 6, 201.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3, 4, Eul evidence 1-1 to 18, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions in this case is minor;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The new shares of this case were allocated to the plaintiff on April 30, 2007 under the name of the plaintiff, and 00 won deposited from the AA Bank Savings Deposit Account (hereinafter referred to as the "Deposit Account of this case") in the plaintiff's name was used as the payment amount of the above new shares. However, the above 00 won out of the above 00 won (attached Form 3 List 3 (hereinafter referred to as the "List 3") was deposited 14 times in the order, 00 won in the same list, 16 deposited money No. 16 of the same list, 100 won in the same list, 200 won in the sum of deposited money No. 25 of the same list), and the remaining 00 won in the list (hereinafter referred to as "the issue amount of this case") was owned by a third party, not the plaintiff, and the third party acquired part of the new shares in the name of the plaintiff, and thus, the remaining issue of the new shares of this case cannot be seen as unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 4 is as shown in the relevant statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) The Plaintiff’s deposit account in the name of the Plaintiff was newly opened on April 23, 2007. From around that time to April 30, 2007, a sum of KRW 000 was deposited in the said deposit account as indicated in the column for the deposit amount in attached Table 3.

2) Of 000 won deposited as above, KRW 000 was withdrawn from the above deposit account on April 30, 2007, and was used as the payment for the instant new shares on the same day.

3) Meanwhile, on May 9, 2007, the instant new shares were transferred under the Plaintiff’s name to the securities account of Y Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “the instant securities account”).

4) From May 15, 2007 to July 19, 2007, 102,014 out of the new shares of this case were sold in cash. Of the sale price, KRW 00 was transferred to each account in the name of each depositor listed in attached Table 3 Nos. 3, 5 through 15, 18, 20 through 24. In addition, the sale price was KRW 00 on June 19, 2007, KRW 000 on June 20, 2007, KRW 00 on June 27, 2007, and KRW 00 on June 28, 2007, and KRW 00 on June 28, 2007, and KRW 100 on July 207, 200 on July 207, 207, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 5 to 7, purport of whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) Whether the Plaintiff is the actual owner of the instant shares

In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that a third party, other than the Plaintiff, is the actual owner of the instant shares, in view of the facts acknowledged earlier and the purport of the entire pleadings. Therefore, each of the dispositions of this case based on the premise that the Plaintiff is the actual owner of the instant shares.

A) The deposit account of this case was newly opened on April 23, 2007. From April 25, 2007 to April 30, 2007, each deposit titleholder listed in the [Attachment 3 List 1 to 13, 15, 17, and 24 remitted 00 won in total to the instant deposit account.

B) Most of the instant new shares, including the instant shares, were sold by the end of June 2007, and immediately after the shares were sold, the price of the new shares, including the instant shares, was transferred from the instant securities account to the account of each depositor in the name of each of the deposit holders listed in attached Table 3 3, 5 through 13, 15, 18, 20, and 24, and the total amount was KRW 00.

C) KimA and UBB remitted each amount of KRW 00 on May 15, 2007 to the instant deposit account; KRW 000 on May 18, 2007; KRW 000 on a remittance of the same amount; KRW 500 on May 21, 2007; KRW 500 on a remittance of the same amount; KRW 500 on May 21, 2007; KRW 500 on May 22, 2007; KRW 500 on a remittance of the same amount; KRW 50 on June 1, 2007; KRW 00 on a remittance of the same amount; KRW H transferred the same amount to the instant deposit account in the names of 00 on June 1, 207; and KRW 10 on a remittance of the same amount from KRW 80 on June 19, 207 to the instant deposit account in the names of 00 on June 19, 2007.

D) Of the proceeds from the sale of the instant new shares, the sum of the funds transferred to the deposit account in the Plaintiff’s name is merely KRW 000.

(ii) a reasonable amount of tax;

Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s shares actually acquired through capital increase issued on April 30, 2007 are the remaining shares. As long as the entire price of the instant new shares was paid at KRW 000,000,000 from the deposit account of the instant case, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff acquired shares of KRW 00/100 of the total new shares through the said capital increase issued. Therefore, by acquiring the remaining shares, the value of the gains from the previous shareholders stated in the table No. 1 and No. 1 through No. 17 is the same as the amount stated in the table No. 1 through No. 17 of the list of the tax amount of the Party’s tax, and the gift tax accordingly is the amount stated in the table No. 1 through No. 17 of the gift tax amount in each of the instant dispositions. Therefore, since the part exceeding the above amount is unlawful, it should be revoked.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.