logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016. 09. 22. 선고 2016누45228 판결
공부상의 소유자가 아닌 실소유자로부터 부담부증여에 따른 양도소득세 과세여부[국승]
Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit

Seoul Administrative Court 2015Gudan365 (04.01)

Title

Whether capital gains tax from onerous donation is levied by the actual owner who is not the owner in the public register;

Summary

It is reasonable to view that the real owner of the instant real estate was not the owner of the public record, but the Plaintiff. Therefore, the instant disposition imposing capital gains tax pursuant to the substance over form principle on the Plaintiff is lawful.

Cases

2016Nu4528 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

Plaintiff and appellant

AA

Defendant, Appellant

BB Director of the Tax Office

Judgment of the first instance court

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2015Gudan3365 decided October 01, 2016

Conclusion of Pleadings

August 25, 2016

Imposition of Judgment

September 22, 2016

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 00,000,000 on August 12, 2013 against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

The reason for this judgment is that "after the acquisition of part of the above shares" was added to "after the second 5th of the judgment of the court of first instance", and that "after the second 5th of the court of first instance, it was dismissed" (the Busan High Court 2015Nu22394) "(the Busan High Court 2015Nu22394), and the appeal was dismissed (the Supreme Court 2016Du34837)."

This is the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is groundless.

arrow