Cho High Court Decision 201Do1091 ( November 24, 2011)

Since it cannot be viewed as the same cause of taxation, the imposition of penalty tax is not double taxation.

The fact that the stocks held as of the date on which the register of shareholders was closed are confirmed among the originally donated stocks, and the fact that the stocks held as of the date on which the register of shareholders was closed are deemed to have been newly trusted to the plaintiff, and the penalty tax is imposed on the plaintiff, since it cannot be deemed that the donation and deemed donation

2012Guhap6025 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

leAA

Samsung Head of Samsung Tax Office

May 22, 2012

June 8, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Claim bed

The part of the gift tax attributed to the Plaintiff in July 8, 2010, exceeding KRW 000,000, which the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff in July 8, 2010, shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. DoD, which is the main owner of the start-up of BB iron chemical Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "CCC"), was under title 49,106 common shares of CCC, and 80,000 common shares of EEE Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "EEE"), but was under title 80,000 common shares of CCC, and on March 31, 2006, the CCC shares 49,106, and on May 3, 2007, each donated 80,000 EE stocks to EEF (hereinafter referred to as "the donation in this case").

B. The FF transferred all of the shares to another person through the Korea Exchange without changing the entry of the said shares, and on June 22, 2009, the FF paid KRW 000,000, including the gift tax on the said shares, after the due date for the gift tax, and the gift tax on the said shares.

C. On October 29, 2009 through January 29, 2010, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office confirmed the fact that the ECE stocks held as of December 31, 2006, and 13,028 shares (hereinafter “instant shares”) held on December 31, 2007, were not transferred to the name of the FF in the name of the FF, and that FF was deemed to have newly trusted the instant shares to the Plaintiff on April 15, 2010 (hereinafter “the instant gift agenda”), and notified the Defendant of the gift tax data on Apr. 15, 2010, regarding that the FF had newly trusted the instant shares to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant gift agenda”).

D. On July 8, 2010, based on Article 45-2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8828 of Dec. 31, 2007, hereinafter referred to as the "Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act"), the Defendant decided and notified the Plaintiff on July 8, 2010, the sum of KRW 000 (the sum of KRW 41,000 for CCC shares, and KRW 13,028 for shares in title trust, and KRW 000 for shares in title trust (the sum of KRW 13,028 for shares in EEE, or for shares in title trust).

E. On December 29, 2010, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, brought an inquiry to the Tax Tribunal, and the said claim was dismissed on November 24, 201.

[Ground of Recognition] The non-satched Facts, Gap evidence 1, 2, and 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the part of penalty tax in the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The FF has paid the tax without filing a return on the gift tax on the instant shares through the adjudication and payment procedure after the deadline for the gift tax on the instant shares, and again imposing the tax on the instant shares, which are the same donated property, is illegal to impose double additional tax on the same taxable cause. Therefore, the imposition of additional tax on the instant shares, which is KRW 00,000, in total, and KRW 000,000, in total, should be revoked.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

The provision on the constructive gift of title trust property under Article 45-2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that gift tax shall be imposed on the state which is not the substance of the gift, and the original meaning and meaning of the provision of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act are different, and the donor of the gift of this case is eF, e.g., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., the gift of this case.

3. Conclusion

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