beta
Text
1. The Defendants’ rejection of correction of each transfer income tax stated in the separate disposition list against the Plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On August 28, 2008, Plaintiff A transferred KRW 20,301,300,300,000 of the shares of 3,515,500 shares of SPPS Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “SPS”) to foreign securities depository receipts (Deposary Recepex, which falls under the Deposary Recepex, and falls under the U.S. A.). On November 7, 2008, Plaintiff A transferred them to SPS, a fund of the U.K. system, KRW 20,301,300,000.
B. In addition, on May 7, 2009, Plaintiff A exercised call options with respect to 600,000 shares of the securities depository receipts of the United Kingdom on May 7, 2009, converted 1,400,000 shares into the securities depository receipts on May 26, 2009, and transferred KRW 3,215,500 in total, on three occasions during the period from June 18, 2009 to June 23, 2009, KRW 97,586,176,200 in total to Vietnam companies of the United Kingdom.
C. On August 1, 2008, Plaintiff B converted 200,000 shares to securities depository receipts, and on May 12, 2009, transferred these shares to Plaintiff B at KRW 5,912,562,742 from the NASA Stock Exchange (NE) which is a non-listed stock trading market in the United States.
(hereinafter the plaintiffs transferred each of the securities depository receipts of this case) D.
Based on the premise that each of the above market shares was transferred to A, B, or B (Plaintiff B), the Plaintiffs respectively reported and paid KRW 1,805,036,870 for the transfer income tax of 2008, KRW 7,603,833,283 for the year 2009, and KRW 529,891,020 for the transfer income tax of 209 for the Plaintiff B.
E. After that, on May 29, 2012, Plaintiff A filed a request for correction to the director of the regional tax office of Defendant C, and Plaintiff B filed a request for correction to refund the total amount of transfer income tax returned and paid on August 31, 2012 on the ground that securities depository receipts are not subject to capital gains tax.
However, on July 2, 2012, the director of the regional tax office against the defendant A, the plaintiff.