2013Nu17154 Revocation of imposition of gift tax, etc.

A

The Director of Gangnam District Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Guhap4739 decided May 24, 2013

December 10, 2013

January 28, 2014

1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to this part is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s disposition of imposing gift tax of KRW 144,752,720 (including additional tax of KRW 62,328,897) against the Plaintiff on July 1, 2011 is revoked.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposing gift tax of KRW 14,548,760 (including additional tax of KRW 6,274,426) against the Plaintiff on July 1, 2011 is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

/ The defendant's appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to this part shall be dismissed.

/ The purport of appeal by the plaintiff

The part of the judgment of the first instance against the plaintiff shall be revoked. The defendant's disposition of imposition of KRW 14,548,760 (including additional tax 6,274,426) against the plaintiff on July 1, 201 shall be revoked.

1. Imposition of gift tax;

The following facts are acknowledged in light of the overall purport of the pleadings in Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 4 (including paper numbers):

[1]

○○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “C”) was changed to “D Co., Ltd.” on January 20, 201, and hereinafter referred to as “C”) on January 6, 1995 by issuing 5,000 common shares of KRW 10,000 at par value.

around January 2006, ○○ owned all 5,000 shares of the issuance of the KOBC (hereinafter referred to as “instant shares”) and is unlisted shares.

On February 27, 2006, ○○ transferred 4,182 shares of the instant shares owned by himself to 5,000 won per share per 10,000 won per share to 5,182 shares of the instant shares, as listed below:

A person shall be appointed.

On February 28, 2006, L, which is a B's B's land, entered into a contract with L, which donates M, M, M, M, 2,112 meters, and 1,079.01 square meters of neighborhood living facilities, stores, liquefied petroleum gas treatment and storage facilities (hereinafter "the real estate of this case") in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which are owned by himself, to the L, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership on March 3, 2006 in the name of the L, which is the land of this case, to the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd.

[2]

○ On July 1, 2011, the Defendant rendered a disposition imposing gift tax of KRW 144,752,720 (including additional tax of KRW 62,328,897) on the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 42(1)3 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act on the ground that L, a shareholder, donated the instant real estate to the Dispute Settlement Bank Co., Ltd., and the Plaintiff, a shareholder, obtained profit (hereinafter referred to as “instant first disposition”).

○ In addition, on July 1, 2011, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing gift tax of KRW 14,548,760 (including additional tax of KRW 6,274,426) on the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 35(1)1 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act on the ground that B transferred 817 shares of this case to the Plaintiff at a low price and that the Plaintiff, the transferee, obtained profit (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

○ Meanwhile, the Defendant imposed capital gains tax of KRW 101,141,290 on B, a transferor, pursuant to the Income Tax Act, on the ground that the shares of this case were transferred at low price by 817 shares of this case.

II. First Disposition of this case

1. The plaintiff's assertion

The first disposition of this case is unlawful for the following reasons, and thus its revocation is sought.

Article 41 (1) 1 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act") shall apply to the donation of this case to L, even though L, a corporation which is a deficit, and thus, Article 41 (1) 1 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act") shall apply to the profit earned by the Plaintiff, which is a shareholder, due to the donation. The value of donated property is less than KRW 100,000,000 if the

Inasmuch as Article 41(1)1 of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act applies as seen above, Article 42(1)3 of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act does not apply to the gift of the instant real estate, as well as Article 42(1)3 of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act does not fall under the acquisition by transfer, business exchange, business restructuring, etc., and so, gift tax cannot be imposed on the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 42(1)3 of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act.

Article 2(3) of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act does not stipulate the requirements for imposing gift tax and the method of calculating donated property, etc. as a confirmatory and declared provision. Therefore, gift tax may not be imposed on the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 2(3) of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act.

In the disposition of this case, the first disposition of this case is imposed on the unrealistic gain of 817 share of this case owned by the plaintiff, and there is no appropriate supplementary provision in preparation for a fair and accurate measurement of unrealistic gain and a decline in property value. Therefore, imposing gift tax on unrealistic gain is in violation of the principle of excessive prohibition under the Constitution.

In the event that L, which donated the instant real estate to the L, paid the corporate tax according to the profit accruing from the receipt of assets, the Plaintiff should pay the dividend income tax when the Plaintiff received dividends from the L, and when the Plaintiff transfers the instant stocks, the transfer income tax should be paid. Therefore, the imposition of gift tax on the Plaintiff constitutes double taxation.

In the event of increase in the property value of stocks due to the commercial transaction of a corporation, gift tax is not imposed on the shareholder. It is against the principle of equality to impose gift tax on the Plaintiff whose capital value has been increased due to the free transaction of the corporation.

In addition, even if a gift tax can be imposed on the Plaintiff, since the Defendant, until March 2006, rendered authoritative interpretation that gift tax shall not be imposed on the Plaintiff in the event that the Plaintiff donates to a corporation that is not a deficit corporation, until March 2006.

2. Full universalism;

(a) Donations and donated property;

[1]

Article 2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2006, Dec. 30, 2006; hereinafter the same) provides that gift tax shall be imposed on the donated property if there is donated property due to another person’s donation. Article 2(1) provides that gift tax shall be imposed on the donated property. Article 2(3) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that the term “donation” means a free transfer of tangible or intangible property, in which economic values can be calculated, by direct or indirect means, to another person or an increase of property values by means of contribution, regardless of the name, form, purpose, etc. of the act or transaction.

On the other hand, Article 31 of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act provides that "the scope of donated property" is "the scope of donated property". Article 31(1) of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act provides that donated property under Article 2 of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act includes all things belonging to the donee and having economic value that can be realized in money and all de facto or de facto rights having property value.

[2]

Gift tax is a taxable cause for "free transfer of a father's property", and such free transfer of a father takes place by "contribution of free property". Such free contribution is to ensure that the property of another person is not reduced as a matter of course by the reduction of one's own property or by the increase of one's own property.

A donation under the Civil Act is a gratuitous and non-contractual contract, which takes effect by one of the parties to grant property to the other party for free and by the other party’s consent. As such, a gratuitous transfer of a donation under tax law may take place as a result of a transaction or act that is not consistent with such intent. Therefore, if a donation under the Civil Act is limited to a donation under the Civil Act, it may result in undermining the principle of equity in taxation. Therefore, even if a donation under the Civil Act is not a donation under the same or similar Act, if a gratuitous transfer is made, it is necessary to include the donation in the subject of gift tax

Article 2(3) of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act provides that “The term “donation” means a free transfer of tangible or intangible property, in a direct or indirect manner, to another person of which economic value can be calculated, regardless of the name, form, purpose, etc. of the act or transaction, or an increase in the value of another person’s property by contribution. This is to expand the scope of taxation of gift tax by introducing the concept of gift by full universalism (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Du17882, Apr. 28, 201).

Article 31(1) of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act provides that donated property pursuant to Article 2 of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act includes all property belonging to the donee and having economic value that can be realized in money and all de facto or de facto rights having property value. This includes all economic benefits that can be realized in money.

(b) Value and appraisal of donated property;

[1]

According to Article 2(1) of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act, gift tax is levied on donated property. Article 47(1) of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act provides that "taxable value of donated property" shall be the amount obtained by subtracting the amount acquired by donee from the total amount of the value of donated property under this Act as of the date of donation. Article 55(1) of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act provides that "taxable value of donated property" shall be the amount obtained by subtracting the amount under Article 53 from the taxable value of donated property.

In addition, Article 60 of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act provides that "the principle of appraisal, etc." is stipulated in Article 60 (1) of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act. Article 60 (2) provides that "the value of property on which a gift tax is levied under this Act shall be based on the market price as of the date of donation." Article 60 (2) provides that "the market price under paragraph (1) shall be the value which is generally established in the event of free transaction between many and unspecified persons, and shall include the amount which is recognized as the market price under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, such as the expropriation/public sale price and appraisal price. In the application of Article 60 (3) and (1), if it is difficult to calculate the market price, it shall be based on the valuation

[2]

On the other hand, Articles 33 through 42 of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act provide that "the calculation of the value of donated property" is "the donation of trust profits". Article 33 provides that "the donation of trust profits". Article 34 provides that "the donation of profits from the conversion of stocks of convertible bonds, etc.", Article 35 provides that "the donation of profits from the transfer at a low price or at a high price", Article 36 provides that "the donation of profits from the free use of real estate", Article 37 provides that "the donation of profits from the free use of real estate", Article 38 provides that "the donation of profits from the merger", Article 39-2 provides that "the donation of profits from the reduction of capital", Article 39-3 provides that "the donation of profits from the transfer of stocks of convertible bonds, etc.", Article 41 provides that "the donation of profits from the conversion of stocks of a specific corporation", Article 41 provides that "the provision of profits from the donation of stocks or the transfer of profits from the free loan pursuant to Article 414".

The article 33 to 42 provides that "the value of the right", "the amount equivalent to the difference between the price and the market price", "amount equivalent to the premium", "amount equivalent to the profit concerned", "amount calculated by multiplying the reasonable interest rate", "the profit concerned" and "the value of donated property" shall be "the value of donated property".

[3]

According to the above provisions, Articles 2(3) and 31(1) of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act introduce the concept of donation based on the complete universalism, thereby expanding the scope of taxation of the gift tax and including all the economic benefits that can be realized in money, thereby evaluating the above donated property at the market price as of the date of donation or evaluating it in the manner prescribed in Articles 61 through 65 of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act, it shall be deemed as the donated property, and the gift tax shall be imposed on the taxable value less the specified amount from the taxable value subtracting the amount of the debt from the donated property at △△△

In addition, Articles 33 through 42 of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act are based on the introduction of Article 2(3) and Article 31(1) of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act into the concept of donation based on the complete universalism to expand the scope of taxation of gift tax and include all economic benefits that can be realized in money in donated property. In addition, Articles 33 through 42 of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act stipulate various kinds of gift and economic benefits corresponding to △△△△ and donated property accordingly individually or by type.

Therefore, Articles 33 through 42 of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act shall have the meaning of restricting the object of gift tax in the scope of the taxation requirement of gift tax by individual or type, but it shall not have the meaning of excluding the case that does not fall under the content of the provision from the object of gift tax.

Therefore, even if the gift tax is not applicable under Articles 33 through 42 of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act, if Article 2(3) and Article 31(1) of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act are applicable to the inclusion of all economic benefits that can be realized by expanding the scope of taxation of the gift tax by introducing the concept of donation based on the complete comprehensive taxation, it shall be subject to the gift tax. In such a case, it shall be deemed that the gift tax may be imposed by evaluating the donated property at the market price as of the date of donation or by evaluating it by the methods stipulated in Articles 61 through 65 of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act as the donated property.

(c) Principle of clarification of taxation requirements:

[1]

Article 2 (3) of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act provides that the term "donation" in this Act means a free transfer of tangible or intangible property which can calculate economic values to another person by direct or indirect means, or an increase in property values of another person by contribution, regardless of the name, form, purpose, etc. of the act or transaction.

The law has generality and abstractness, and the meaning of the law provisions can be clarified at all times through the interpretation of the judge's supplementary action, and this will be the same as in the field of tax law. Therefore, if the meaning of the tax law provisions can be clear in light of the general theory, its structure and legislative intent of the tax law in question, it cannot be said that the provision is unconstitutional because it is in violation of the principle of clarity of taxation requirements (see Constitutional Court Order 2004Hun-Ba8, Jun. 29, 2006).

[2]

The essence of Article 2(3) of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act is to expand the scope of taxation of gift taxes by introducing the concept of donation by the complete universalism, and such donation is to be included in the donation provided for in Article 2(3) of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act only in cases where a gratuitous contribution is recognized. Such grant is not a quid pro quo contribution, and in principle, it is recognized that there is no intent to distribute economic benefits, but a gratuitous contribution is determined according to the intention of the party, and whether there is such intent should be determined objectively by taking into account all the circumstances, rather than by an individual and subjective evaluation.

Article 2(3) of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act provides that the transfer of property to another person and the increase of the property value of another person by contribution shall be made. The essence of free contribution is that such free contribution is not to reduce another person’s property, or to reduce as a matter of course, due to the fact that the property to be reduced or to be increased naturally, does not increase one’s own property. Accordingly, donated property subject to gift tax is limited to the scope to which the causal relation in free contribution is recognized.

In addition, pursuant to Articles 47, 55, and 60 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, gift tax shall be assessed at the market price as of the date of donation or assessed by the methods stipulated in Articles 61 through 65 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and it shall be deemed as the value of donated property, and the amount calculated by deducting a specified amount from the taxable value of donated property less the amount of debts shall be imposed as the tax base

[3]

Therefore, Article 2(3) of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act cannot be deemed to be in violation of the principle of clarification of taxation requirements, and it does not impose gift tax only on the basis of Article 2(3) of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act.

Therefore, even if it does not meet the taxation requirements of gift tax under Articles 33 through 42 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the issue of whether the Article 2(3) and Article 31(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act constitutes the inclusion of all economic benefits that can be realized in money by introducing the concept of donation with the complete universal principle in accordance with the nature and causal relationship of the donation without compensation, and if it falls under this, the gift tax may be levied by evaluating the donated property at the market price as of the date of donation or by evaluating it as the method under Articles 61 through 65 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act as the value of donated property.

3. Article 41 of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act (Donation of Profits through Transactions with Specific Corporations);

(a) Contents of regulations;

[1]

Article 41 (1) of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act provides that in case where a person who has a special relationship with a stockholder of a corporation (hereinafter referred to as a "specified corporation") with a stockholder of the relevant △△△△ corporation obtains a profit through "transaction falling under any of the following subparagraphs" with the relevant specific corporation, the amount of money equivalent to the △△△△△△△△△△△ value shall be deemed the value of donated property

Article 41(1) of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act provides that “the transactions falling under any of the following subparagraphs”, “the transaction of providing △△△ assets or services free of charge (Article 41(1) of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act), “the transaction of transferring or providing △△△ assets or services for the significantly low prices in light of the ordinary transaction practices (Article 41(1) of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act (Article 41(1)

[2]

Article 41 (2) of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act provides that the calculation of profits earned by a specific corporation or a shareholder of a specific corporation under paragraph (1) shall be made in accordance with the Presidential Decree.

Article 31 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act provides that "a specific corporation" in Article 41 (1) of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act means a corporation (excluding an Association-registered corporation under the Securities and Exchange Act) which is not listed on the Korea Stock Exchange, which falls under any of the following subparagraphs.

Article 31 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act provides that "a corporation falling under any of the following subparagraphs" and that has deficits under Article 18 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act until the business year in which the date of donation of △△ was included. In this case, losses shall be deemed before compensating for losses due to the donation of property, etc. pursuant to Article 41 (1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, but losses for the business year to which the date of donation belongs shall be deemed as prior to the inclusion of the amount of donation of property under Article 41 (1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act in gross income pursuant to the Corporate Tax Act (Article 1), and the corporation (Article 2) which

Article 31(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act provides that the profit under Article 41(1) of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act shall be the amount calculated by multiplying the profit falling under any of the following subparagraphs (in the case of a corporation falling under subparagraph 1 of paragraph (1), it shall be limited to the loss concerned) by the share ratio of the person under paragraph (5).

Article 31(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act provides that "the profits falling under any of the following subparagraphs" shall be defined as "the profits," the amount equivalent to the value of the donated property or the profits from the exemption, acquisition, or repayment of the debts of the pertinent corporation (Article 1); and the amount equivalent to the difference between the market value and the price pursuant to paragraph (3) in cases other than subparagraph 1 of the △△△△△△△△△△.

(b) Deficits;

[1]

The legislative intent of Article 41 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is to impose gift tax on modified donations that give profits to shareholders of a specific corporation without bearing corporate tax on the donated value by offsetting the donated value as deficit. A corporation that has no deficit in the business year to which the date of donation belongs even without any deficit brought forward falls under the first sentence of Article 31(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Du6813, Apr. 14, 201).

Meanwhile, according to Article 41 (1) 1 of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act, in case where a person having a special relationship with a stockholder of a corporation who has a deficit engages in a transaction of providing property free of charge between the corporation and the corporation, and a shareholder of the corporation obtains profits through such transaction, gift tax is imposed on

The latter part of Article 31 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act concerning these losses, and the loss is before compensation for the loss due to the donation of property pursuant to Article 41 (1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, but the loss for the business year to which the date of donation belongs shall be prior to the inclusion of the amount of donation of property pursuant to Article 41 (1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act in the gross income pursuant to the Corporate Tax Act.

In addition, according to the Corporate Tax Act, where the total amount of losses belonging to △△△ in the business year exceeds the gross income belonging to the business year, such excess amount as losses, the amount of losses incurred within a certain period of time shall be deducted from the tax base of the business year, and the amount appropriated for compensating for losses carried forward among the value of the assets received free of charge

In light of the above nature of losses and the legislative intent above, in the case of a corporation with only losses for the business year to which the donation date belongs without losses, it shall be deemed that there is losses exceeding the deductible expenses from the date of the business year to the date of donation, and it shall be deemed that the specific corporation has losses.

If no deficit exists and no deficit exists even at the time of the donation, and it is deemed that the corporation is a specific corporation that has a deficit as a result of the last day of the business year in which the donation date falls, gift tax is imposed on the profits earned by the shareholder through such transaction even though it is not a transaction of gratuitous provision of property between the corporation with deficit at the time of the donation date of the △△△△, and it is impossible to find out whether it is liable to pay gift tax until the last day of the business year in which the donation date belongs, because it is inconsistent with the purpose of legislation or provisions of Article 41 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

[2]

L L entered into a contract to donate the instant real estate to the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. on February 28, 2006 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 3, 2006 to the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd.

However, in full view of the purport of the argument in Eul's evidence Nos. 2, 3, 8, 20, and 20 (including the branch number) as a whole, it was found that no deficit was carried forward as of March 3, 2006, which was the donation date, and that there was 7,896,809 loss before including the donation amount of the real estate as of December 31, 2006, which was the end of the business year 2006, which was the donation date. Such deficit amount of KRW 7,896,809, which was 206,371,230,941, which was 6,379,127,750, which was derived from the donation of the real estate in this case, was deducted from the asset increase profit of KRW 6,379,127,750, which was generated from the donation of the real estate in this case; KRW 2006, KRW 206, KRW 3706,2719,7,706,7,706.

In addition, even after the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case on February 10, 2012, the Tax Tribunal claimed that the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd is a black corporation, and even after the lawsuit in this case was filed, the plaintiff asserted that the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd is a juristic person as a deficit in the preparatory document of November 22, 2012 submitted to the court of first instance.

As above, in light of the fact that the period from the donation date to the last day of 2006 to the business year of 2006 less than 10 months and the loss is 7,896,809 less the profit accruing from the donation of the real estate in this case from the income amount of the business year of 2006, the loss was incurred due to the securities disposal loss that occurred in the 2006 business year, the fact that the plaintiff's assertion that it is a black corporation was changed, etc., it shall not be deemed that the KINC, which did not have any loss carried forward, had a loss exceeding the loss for the period of 2 months from January 1, 2006 to March 3, 206, which is the donation date, was a corporation, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.

Therefore, even if L has donated the instant real estate to the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., it cannot be deemed that L has traded the instant real estate without compensation between L and a corporation with losses incurred as a specific corporation.

Therefore, even if L, inasmuch as L, donated the instant real estate to L, and the Plaintiff, a shareholder, gains profits, this does not fall under the requirements prescribed in Article 41 (1) 1 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, so it shall not be deemed that gift tax may not be imposed on the Plaintiff pursuant to the above provisions.

[3]

However, according to the above Articles 33 through 42 of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act, based on the introduction of the concept of donation under the complete universalism, Articles 2(3) and 31(1) of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act to expand the scope of taxation of gift tax and to include all economic benefits that can be realized in money in donated property, the scope of taxation of gift tax is prescribed individually or by type. Thus, in the scope of the requirements for taxation of gift tax by stipulating the requirements for taxation of gift tax individually or by type, the scope of the requirements for taxation of gift tax has the meaning of restricting the object of gift tax, but it does not have the meaning of excluding the cases that do not fall under the provisions from the object of taxation.

Therefore, even if gift tax cannot be imposed on the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 41(1)1 of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act as above, it cannot be naturally impossible to impose gift tax on the Plaintiff pursuant to other provisions.

4. Article 42 of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act.

(a) Contents of regulations;

[1]

Article 42 of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act provides for "the donation, etc. of other profits". In addition to the donations under Articles 33 through 41, 41-3 through 41-5 of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act, Article 42 (1) of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act provided that "the profits falling under any of the following subparagraphs" shall be deemed "the profits falling under any of the following subparagraphs, which are above the standard prescribed by the Presidential Decree".

Article 42 (1) 3 of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act provides that "the profits falling under any of the following subparagraphs" shall be defined as "the profits arising from the increase or decrease of the corporation's capital, such as investment in △△, reduction of capital, merger (including division and merger), division, and conversion, acquisition, and exchange of stocks by convertible bonds, etc. under Article 40 (1) (hereinafter "stock conversion, etc.") and profits arising from the change of the company's equity or value due to the change of the company's business transfer, business transfer, business exchange, corporate restructuring, etc.

Article 42 (1) 3 of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act provides that with respect to the above profits, the pertinent profits shall be the amount calculated by subtracting the value of stock conversion, etc. from the value of the stock at the time of stock conversion, etc. in the case of stock conversion, etc., and in the case of other than the stock conversion, etc. of △△△, it shall be the difference in the

[2]

Article 31-9 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act provides for "profit above the standard prescribed by Presidential Decree" as above.

Article 31-9 (2) 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act, and Article 31-9 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act provides that the amount calculated by subtracting the value of the stock conversion, etc. from the value of the stock at the time of stock conversion

Article 31-9 (2) 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act provides that the difference in the appraisal value of the pertinent property shall be the value of the donated property if the difference in the appraisal value is at least 30% of the value of the relevant property before or after the change in the ownership shares or the value of the relevant property in cases other than the conversion of shares, etc., or if the amount is at least 300 million won. Such a difference in the appraisal value

(b) Capital transactions and transfer of business;

[1]

Article 42(1)3 of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act provides that, as seen above, the gift tax is imposed on the profits from the transactions that increase or decrease the capital of the △△ corporation, the profits from the transactions that are acquired through the business transfer, business transfer, business exchange, business change of the corporation, etc.

Transactions that increase or decrease the capital of a corporation are so-called capital transactions that take place between a corporation and a shareholder. This is a transaction that causes a change in the capital of a corporation and that a corporation is invested by a shareholder or distributes assets to shareholders.

The business transfer and business exchange are the transfer and exchange of all or important parts of the assets that are organized and function as an organic integration for the business purpose of the company, and the change of the corporation's organization is the conversion of the corporation into another corporation while maintaining the identity of the personality.

On the other hand, the restructuring or structural reorganization of an enterprise takes place in various forms, such as merger, division, comprehensive acquisition of the business, organizational restructuring, etc. This may be divided into the acquisition of assets and liabilities transferred by the enterprise, the acquisition of stocks in which the control over the corporation is transferred through stocks.

In light of the above, Article 42 (1) 3 of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act provides that capital transactions in which the capital of a corporation is changed, business transfer and business exchange with the business contents and characteristics of a corporation, change in the type of a corporation, etc. shall not be included in the case of acquisition of assets without such change.

This is because the acquisition of assets without such change is a general profit and loss transaction that affects the corporation's income, but it does not result in a change in the corporation's capital structure or the nature of the company, so it cannot be seen as identical or similar to capital transactions, business transfer, business exchange, etc.

[2]

L L entered into a contract to donate the instant real estate to the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. on February 28, 2006 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 3, 2006 to the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd.

However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap's evidence Nos. 3, 5, 8, and 16, and Eul's evidence Nos. 3 through 19 (including additional numbers), it is recognized that the △△△△ Project Co., Ltd has been running the real estate management and lease business prior to the donation of the real estate of this case, and △△ Project Co., Ltd has managed the real estate of this case through its own employee NN before the donation of this case. The △△ Project Co., Ltd did not succeed to the employment relationship of the above employee after receiving the real estate of this case from L, and at the time of the donation of this case, L and (State)C prepared a contract to donate the real estate of this case, and did not have agreed to evaluate the assets and liabilities or to succeed to the employment relationship.

Therefore, even if L has donated the instant real estate to the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd, it is not a capital transaction with which the corporation's capital changes, but a change in the type of the corporation does not change, and it is not a business transfer and business exchange with the business contents and characteristics of the corporation, and it constitutes the acquisition of assets without such change.

Therefore, even if L, the Plaintiff, a shareholder, obtained profits by donating the instant real estate to (State)C, this does not fall under the requirements prescribed in Article 42(1)3 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and thus, gift tax may not be imposed on the Plaintiff pursuant to the said provision.

[3]

As above, even if the gift tax cannot be imposed on the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 42(1)3 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, it cannot be naturally impossible to impose gift tax on the Plaintiff pursuant to other provisions, and it is identical to the examination as to Article 41(1)1 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act.

5. Gift tax under Article 2 of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act;

(a) Miscellaneous property and donated property;

[1]

According to the above, even if it does not meet the requirements for imposing gift tax under Articles 33 through 42 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the issue of whether Article 2(3) and Article 31(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act constitutes the inclusion of all economic benefits that can be realized by expanding the scope of taxation of gift tax by adopting the concept of donation with the complete comprehensive taxation, shall be determined based on the nature of free contribution and causal relationship, etc., and if it falls under this, the gift tax may be levied by evaluating the donated property at the market price as of the date of donation or by evaluating it at the market price as stipulated in Articles 61 through 65 of the Inheritance Tax

[2]

A shareholder is entitled to participate in the management and operation of a corporation by exercising his/her voting right while holding shares, and is entitled to receive economic benefits from the corporation based on the claim for dividend and the claim for distribution of residual assets, and is reflected in the property value of the corporation. The property value of shares is the property value of the corporation. Although the property value of the corporation is reflected, it is the property value of the shares owned by the shareholder separately from the property owned by the corporation. Therefore, the shares are included in the property value of all economic benefits that can be realized in money.

Generally, the asset value of shares is the value of equity capital, which is the value of other capital, which remains after deducting the value of the entire asset, which is the creditor’s share, from the total asset value. The asset value of such shares can be divided into the asset value and profit value. The asset value is based on the shareholder’s right to claim distribution of residual assets and can be calculated by dividing the net asset of the corporation into the total number of issued and outstanding shares. Meanwhile, the profit value is based on the shareholder’s right to claim distribution of residual assets, and can be calculated by dividing the face value of the shares by the expected return rate. Accordingly, the asset value of the shares may be increased by increasing

[3]

According to the above facts of recognition, △△△ Co., Ltd. owned 5,000 shares of this case, which were issued by △△△△ Co., Ltd., and transferred 4,182 shares of 5,000 shares to 10,000 won per share from the above 5,000 shares to △△△△, and accordingly, △△△ Co., Ltd. owned 817 shares of this case. Accordingly, △△△ Co., Ltd. owned 817 shares of this case. L Co., Ltd., a member of △△△△△△ Co., Ltd. entered into a contract to donate △△ on February 28, 2006, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future of the instant real estate on March 3, 2006.

Therefore, the donation of the instant real estate owned by L to (State)C will increase the net asset value of L to the LAC and thereby increase the asset value of the instant stocks.

In addition, it is recognized that L, which is the shareholder of L, in the case of B, and in the case of the plaintiff and E, who is the owner of L, who is the owner of the LAC, donated the instant real estate to the (State)C in consideration of all the circumstances, L is deemed to have an intention to distribute the economic profit to the shareholders, including the plaintiff, in an objective determination.

As seen earlier, Article 2(3) of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act provides that the transfer of property to another person and the increase of the property value of another person by contribution shall be made.

Therefore, in order to increase the property value of the instant shares owned by the Plaintiff by donating the instant real estate to the (State)C, there is a causal relationship between gratuitous and gratuitous contribution. As such, Articles 2(3) and 31(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act are deemed to include all economic benefits that can be realized by expanding the scope of taxation of gift tax and monetary realization by introducing the concept of donation by complete universalism. Thus, it is deemed to be subject to gift tax.

In addition, since the increase in the asset value of the above shares is the difference between the stock value before L's donation and the stock value after L's donation, such difference shall be deemed as the value of donated property.

[4]

Article 60 of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act provides that the value of the property on which the gift tax is levied shall be based on the market price as of the date of donation, and that if it is difficult to calculate such market price, it shall be based on the value assessed by the methods prescribed in Articles 61 through 65 of the Inheritance and Gift Tax

Article 63 of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act and Article 54(1) of the Enforcement Decree thereof provide that unlisted stocks shall be calculated by weighted average value of net profit and loss and net value per share. Such net profit and loss value are calculated by dividing the weighted average amount of net profit and loss per share for the last three years by the rate publicly notified by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, taking into account the rate of return on distribution of bonds with the maturity of three years, in which the financial institution guarantees the weighted average amount of net profit and loss for the last three years per share. The above net asset value was defined by dividing

[5]

In full view of the overall purport of the argument in Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including the branch number), the stocks of this case are unlisted stocks, and it is difficult to calculate the market price because there is no transaction example, etc., and when △△△△ assesss the stocks of this case as of February 27, 2006, based on Article 63 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and Article 54 (1) of the Enforcement Decree, based on which △△△ transferred the stocks of this case to the plaintiff, the value of the stocks of this case is KRW 167,710 per share, and when △△△△ concluded a contract to donate the real estate of this case to the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., and completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the future of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. as of March 3, 2006.

If so, L’s real estate of this case is the sum of 492,119,133 won (-602,349 x 817 weeks) per share, which is the difference between 167,710 won and 770,059 won after the donation and 770,059 won after the donation (=70,059 won - 167,710 won) before and after L’s donation, the gift tax may be levied on the real estate of this case as the value of the Plaintiff’s donated property.

[6]

In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement Nos. 1 and 2 (including additional numbers), the Defendant, while making the Disposition No. 1 against the Plaintiff, found that the Defendant imposed gift tax on the Plaintiff with the amount of KRW 492,119,133, which is calculated as above as the value of donated property. Thus, such disposition is lawful.

On the other hand, Article 42 (1) 3 of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act and Article 31-9 (2) 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act provide that the profits from the change in ownership shares or the value of the shares due to the transfer of the business by △△△△△, etc. shall be the difference before and after the change in the ownership shares or the value thereof, and that the difference in the value of the relevant property shall be the value of the donated property where the difference in the value of the relevant property is more than 30% of the value before and after the change in the value

These regulations restrict the imposition of gift tax only when the assessment difference exceeds a certain percentage or a certain amount, which is favorable to taxpayers. However, according to the above, 602,349 won (=70,059 won - 167,710 won), which is the difference between 770,059 won after the change in the shares of this case and 167,710 won before the change (=70,059 won - 167,710 won), exceeds 50,313 won (i.e., 167,710 won X 30%) which is 167,710 won before the change, and such amount satisfies the requirements of the provisions favorable to taxpayers as above.

(b) Unrealized gains, etc.;

[1]

As seen above, in the event that gift tax is imposed on the Plaintiff on the ground of an increase in the property value of 817 share shares in the instant case, this would impose tax on the unrealized profits.

However, in that there has been an increase in the tax capacity due to the increase in the income of taxpayers who have not been realized since the benefits have not been realized, there is no fundamental difference between the realization profit and the unrealized profit, and the issue of whether the increased income should be commercialized separately from the original is merely an asset holding type in which the relevant taxpayer selects how to keep the entire asset composition, and it is not an issue of income creation, and the taxation of unrealized profit is merely an taxation of income distinct from the original as it is the taxation of realizing profit. Whether the scope of capital gains, which is subject to taxation, is limited to income or whether the unrealized income is included in the scope of income, is the issue of legislative policy, and it does not appear to be contradictory or inconsistent with the concept of tax under the Constitution, considering the problems such as the purpose of taxation, characteristics of taxable income, and taxation technology (see Constitutional Court Order 92Hun-Ba49, 52, July 29, 194).

Capital gains are generally defined as gains from the increase of value, i.e., the difference between the disposal value of capital assets or between the market value and the acquisition value of the assets. Income generated by the increase of the value of capital assets due to external factors, such as the passage of time other than general income and the change in market conditions, etc. is capital gains and losses are capital gains and losses that result from the increase or decrease in the market value of the capital assets (see Constitutional Court Order 2006Hun-Ba18,54, Jul. 27, 2006). Gift taxes are tax bases for free transfer of property. If the increase in the value of capital assets falls under the transfer of property without compensation, the method of tax burden and taxation may vary.

Meanwhile, Article 63 of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act and Article 54(1) of the Enforcement Decree provide that the valuation of unlisted stocks shall be based on the weighted average value of net profit and loss and net asset value per share, as seen earlier. In light of the general nature of stocks, the above valuation methods cannot be deemed as the valuation methods unfair or inaccurate, which cannot be permitted.

In addition, in the event that the value of the instant shares owned by the Plaintiff increases in the value of the property of 817 share shares, it is not impossible for the Plaintiff to transfer and simplify the instant shares, but it is not possible for the Plaintiff to additionally bear the liability for tax payment on the ground of such ownership while the Plaintiff owned 817 share shares without transferring them.

The first disposition of this case is based on the fact that L has obtained profit by increasing the value of the stocks of this case through the donation to the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. Therefore, the first disposition of this case cannot be deemed to be unlawful on the ground of the above unrealized gain.

[2]

L has donated the instant real estate to the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. In such cases, the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd shall pay the corporate tax according to the assets increase profit, and when the plaintiff receives dividends from the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd, he shall pay the dividend income tax, and when the plaintiff transfers the instant stocks, he shall pay the transfer income tax

However, double taxation itself cannot be deemed as unconstitutional (see Constitutional Court Order 2006HunBa102 delivered on March 26, 2009), and such corporate tax, dividend income tax, and transfer income tax are not completely overlapped.

In addition, Articles 17 (3) (proviso) and 56 (1) of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 781, Dec. 30, 2006; hereinafter the same) provide that the amount of dividend shall be the total amount of income in the year concerned, but in certain cases, the amount of dividend income shall be the amount calculated by adding the amount equivalent to 15% of the dividend income to the total amount of income in the year concerned and the amount equivalent to such added amount shall be deducted from the calculated global income tax.

In addition, Article 97 (1) 1 of the Income Tax Act and Article 163 (10) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that the gift tax has been imposed pursuant to the provisions of Articles 33 through 42 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act shall be added to or subtracted from the acquisition value of the relevant donated property or the increase or decrease thereof. Accordingly, the overlapping issue of the gift tax and the transfer income tax shall be adjusted to

The first disposition of this case is based on the fact that L, by gifting the real estate of this case to the (State)C, the Plaintiff, a shareholder, has gained profit by increasing the value of the stocks of this case. Therefore, the first disposition of this case cannot be deemed unlawful on the grounds of the above corporate tax, dividend income tax, and transfer income tax.

[3]

With respect to a commercial transaction of a corporation, the corporation acquires its assets through the transaction and pays the cost of the transaction. On the contrary, the corporation's gratuitous transaction is merely acquiring its assets through the transaction and does not pay the cost.

If there is an increase in the property value of stocks due to the commercial transaction of a corporation, the gift tax shall not be imposed on the shareholders when the increase in the property value of stocks is made due to the free transaction of the corporation without the gift tax to the shareholders.

The first disposition of this case is based on the fact that L, by gifting the real estate of this case to the (State)C, the Plaintiff, a shareholder, obtained a benefit by increasing the value of the stocks of this case. Therefore, the first disposition of this case cannot be deemed unlawful on the ground of the principle of equality as above.

(c) Additional tax;

[1]

Under the tax law, in cases where a taxpayer violates various duties, such as a return and tax payment, without justifiable grounds, in order to facilitate the exercise of the right to impose taxes and the realization of a tax claim, the taxpayer’s intention and negligence is not considered as administrative sanctions imposed as prescribed by the individual tax law. On the other hand, such sanctions cannot be imposed in cases where justifiable grounds exist, such as where the taxpayer is deemed to have failed to know his/her duty, and it is unreasonable to expect the party to fulfill his/her duty, or where it is unreasonable to expect the party to fulfill his/her duty (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du13632, Jan. 27, 2005).

The principle of good faith or the principle of respect for tax practices provided for in Article 18(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes may apply only to cases where there are special circumstances deemed that the protection of taxpayers’ trust is consistent with the concept of justice even if the principle of legality is sacrificed. Generally, the interpretation of tax-related Acts or the practice of national tax administration accepted by taxpayers refers to the extent that it is deemed unreasonable for taxpayers, who are not a specific taxpayer, to have accepted a wrongful interpretation or practice without any objection, to the extent that it is not unreasonable for taxpayers to trust such interpretation or practice. The burden of proof for the existence of such interpretation or practice is the taxpayer (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du1253, Oct. 25, 2002).

[2]

In response to Article 41 of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act in 2004 and around 2005, the National Tax Service confirmed that in case where a person who has a special relationship with a stockholder of a specific corporation under the above provision provides the relevant specific corporation with the property free of charge or transfers the property at a price significantly lower than the market price, the amount equivalent to the profit shall be deemed to have been donated to the person who has a special relationship with the specific corporation, but in case where the corporate tax is levied on the property donated by the person who does not correspond to the specific corporation under the Corporate Tax Act.

The above reply is related to Article 41 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. The purport of the above reply is that if a corporation which has no deficit receives a donation of property and the corporate tax is imposed on such property, it does not meet the taxation requirements prescribed in Article 41 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and thus, the gift tax pursuant to Article 41 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is not imposed on its shareholders. It cannot be viewed as a reply that no gift tax is imposed on its shareholders pursuant to any provision of the Inheritance Tax

The disposition No. 1 of this case is made on the ground that L has made a profit by increasing the property value of the stocks of this case by making a donation to the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. Therefore, the above response cannot be deemed to have a justifiable ground for failing to prove his duty to pay the gift tax, such as in the event that the plaintiff was not aware of his obligation to pay the gift tax, or there is a circumstance that it is unreasonable to expect the plaintiff to fulfill his obligation to pay the gift tax, or that it is unreasonable to expect the plaintiff to fulfill his obligation. In addition, the above response cannot be deemed that the interpretation or practice that the gift tax is not imposed on the property of a corporation which has no loss, if the corporate tax is imposed on the property by receiving a donation of the property from a corporation which has no loss, it cannot be deemed to have reached the extent that the taxpayer is not unreasonable to believe such interpretation or practice. Accordingly, the part on which penalty tax was imposed in the disposition No. 1 of this case cannot be deemed to be unlawful.

6. Sub-committee;

Therefore, the disposition of this case 1 which imposes gift tax and additional tax on the plaintiff with respect to the donation to the Bank of Bankruptcy Co., Ltd. is legitimate, and the plaintiff's claim seeking revocation is groundless.

Ⅲ. The second disposition of this case

1. The plaintiff's assertion

B It constitutes double taxation to impose a gift tax under the Inheritance Tax Act on the Plaintiff on the ground that the instant 817 shares owned by the Plaintiff were transferred at a low price of KRW 10,00 per share to the Plaintiff under the Income Tax Act on the ground that the said shares were transferred at a low price. Therefore, the instant 2 disposition against which the gift tax was imposed on the Plaintiff is unlawful and thus seeking revocation thereof.

2. Transfer income tax or gift tax;

[1]

Article 35 (1) 1 of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act provides that when a person acquires property from a third person at a price lower than the market price, the transferee of the property shall be deemed the value of property donated to the third person.

On the other hand, Articles 3 and 4 of the Income Tax Act provide that the income tax shall be imposed on all income prescribed by this Act in the case of a resident, and the income of a resident is defined as global, retirement, capital gains, and forest income. Article 95 of the Income Tax Act provides that with respect to capital gains, Article 95 of the Income Tax Act provides that the amount calculated by deducting the special long-term holding deduction

In addition, Article 101 (1) of the Income Tax Act provides that when it is deemed that the act or calculation of a resident with capital gains has reduced unreasonably the tax burden on the relevant income due to transactions with the resident and the related party, the amount of income for the relevant year may be calculated regardless of the act or calculation of the resident.

However, Article 2 (2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that the gift tax shall not be imposed when the income tax under the Income Tax Act is imposed on the donee with respect to the donated property stipulated in paragraph (1).

[2]

The reason for taxation of gift tax is that the transfer of property without compensation is the cause for taxation, and there is no difference between the property acquired with compensation and the property acquired without compensation, but in that there is no recipient's contribution to his/her labor, capital or compensation contribution in the process of acquiring it, it is necessary to distinguish both tax burden and taxation method for both parties in terms of the fact that there was no recipient's contribution to his/her labor, capital or compensation contribution in the process of acquiring it. Accordingly, the gratuitous acquisition of property from the net asset value of an individual is the donation, and the income tax is imposed separately on the income and the income tax.

Therefore, while imposing gift tax on the increase in net assets generated to the donee as a result of the transfer of property without compensation, it is not permissible to impose income tax on the donee by regarding such income as double taxation.

On the other hand, the transfer income tax imposes on the transferor the transfer margin, which is a form of capital gains, upon the transfer of assets, and the gift tax imposes on the donee the value of the donated property upon the transfer of the property without compensation.

Therefore, deeming that a donor realizes an unrealizedable gain inherent in donated property due to a gift, imposing transfer income tax on the donor and imposing gift tax on the value of the entire donated property that includes unrealized gain may not be deemed to cause double taxation problem.

[3]

In a case where the tax authority imposes gift tax on a donee according to different requirements for establishment of tax liability, timing, and taxpayers, it is not possible to impose gift tax unless there are special provisions excluding duplicate application. Article 2(2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that gift tax shall not be imposed on a donee when income tax is imposed on the donated property provided for in Article 2(1) of the Income Tax Act. However, in light of the language and text thereof and the nature of the gift tax as complementary tax, where gift tax is imposed on a donee, it does not fall under a special provision excluding overlapping application of capital gains tax and gift tax (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Du11830, Sept. 21, 199; 2002Du12458, May 13, 2003).

[4]

According to the above, on February 27, 2006, △△△ transferred 817 shares of this case to the Plaintiff, who is a △△△△ Governor, at the face value of 10,000 won per share. On the basis of the above transfer date, when evaluating the shares of this case, which are non-listed shares, based on the above transfer date, in the manner provided for in Article 63 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and Article 54 (1) of the Enforcement Decree, the value of the shares is KRW 167,710 per share. The △△△△△△ imposes capital gains tax on B on the ground of such low-price transfer. On the ground of the above low-price transfer of the shares, the △△△△△△△△ issued the second disposition of this case imposing gift tax

Therefore, while imposing transfer income tax on B on the ground of the transfer of shares 817 shares, the instant secondary disposition that imposed gift tax on the Plaintiff on the ground of the transfer of shares constitutes a double taxation and cannot be deemed unlawful.

3. Sub-resolution:

Thus, the disposition of this case 2, which imposed gift tax on the Plaintiff regarding the transfer of 817 shares of this case to the Plaintiff, is legitimate, and the Plaintiff’s claim seeking revocation is groundless.

IV. Conclusion

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim seeking the revocation of the instant disposition No. 1 related to L’s donation to the Bank of Bankruptcy Co., Ltd. and B related to the transfer of 817 shares of this case to the Plaintiff shall be dismissed as it is without merit.

However, the judgment of the first instance court, citing the Plaintiff’s claim seeking revocation of the first disposition of this case, dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim seeking revocation of the second disposition of this case, and partly unfair.

Therefore, the defendant's appeal shall be accepted, and the part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's appeal corresponding to this part shall be dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges of the presiding judge;

Judges fixed-scale

Category of Judges: