In the case of Gap and Eul corporation Byung, and at the same time, Gap is the director of the building management office owned by Eul corporation, the representative director of Eul, whether Gap and Eul are related parties under Article 20 subparagraph 9 and subparagraph 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes in relation to Byung corporation (negative)

In cases where Gap, a shareholder of Byung, is not directly and individually in the same shareholder Eul or Byung corporation, but only in the employment relationship with Eul corporation as the head of the building management office in which Eul is the representative director, Gap and Eul do not constitute a specially related person under Article 20 subparagraph 9 and Article 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which are the secondary tax liability.

Article 20 of the Enforcement Decree of the Basic Act

Hak-si

head of Dongjak-gu Tax Office

The imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 56,293,890 against the plaintiff as of October 16, 1986 and the imposition of KRW 11,258,770 against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Each of subparagraph 1 through 4, subparagraph 5-1, subparagraph 1 through 6, subparagraph 2, subparagraph 3-2, subparagraph 4-2, subparagraph 8-2, and subparagraph 6-8-2, and subparagraph 6-2 of the above Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, the plaintiff acquired 5,00 shares of the non-party 1-6 corporation (the face value is 1,000 won) 5,00 shares calculated on September 2, 1978 (the value is 1,000 won) 14,420 shares were assigned to the non-party 1-6, and the non-party 1-6, and the non-party 1-6, the non-party 1-6, and the non-party 1-6, the non-party 1-6, and the non-party 3-6, the non-party 1-6, and the non-party 1-6, and the non-party 1-6, the non-party 1-6.

2. As to the defendant's assertion that the disposition of this case is lawful on the grounds of the above disposition and the applicable provisions of law, the plaintiff did not calculate the transfer value and the acquisition value in calculating transfer margin according to the same criteria, and the transfer value is illegal in calculating transfer margin, and the defendant's disposition of this case, which is calculated on the basis of each application of Article 5 (1) 1 (b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act and Article 170 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, is unlawful as it violates the same criteria as the two parties mentioned in Article 170 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, and second, there is no provision excluding the acquisition value of free of charge among the necessary expenses mentioned in Article 45 (1) of the Income Tax Act and Article 94 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, and the face value at the time of gratuitous acquisition should be the acquisition value at the time of calculating transfer income, contrary to the provisions of the National Tax Service. Third, the defendant's disposition of this case is unlawful.

3. First of all, with regard to the above third argument, Article 23 (1) 3 of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3576 of Dec. 21, 1982) provides that the income accrued from the transfer of assets as prescribed by the Presidential Decree (hereinafter "other assets") shall be the transfer income. According to Article 44-2 (1) 1 (b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act based on which "one shareholder and other shareholders (one shareholder or one investor and his relative, a person under a special relationship with him, and a person under a special relationship with him) occupy 50/100 or more of the total amount of the stocks or equity shares of a corporation which is 50/100 or more of the total amount of the stocks or equity shares of which are 50/100 or more, the pertinent shares are one of the "other assets" under Article 23 (1) 3 of the Act, and Article 20 subparagraph 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "employee or other person under a special relationship with the employee".

However, there is no specific stockholder, employee, or other employed person of a corporation, but merely a specific stockholder of the corporation in the employment relationship with the employee or other employed person of the corporation in question does not belong to the employee or other employed person under Article 20 subparagraph 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes [Reference to General Rule 4-2-19(39) of the Framework Act on National Taxes];

According to the above facts, the plaintiff is not directly nor individually in the employment relationship with the non-party 1, the KOB and the KOB, but in the employment relationship with the non-party 1, the KOB and the non-party 1, whose representative director is the non-party 1, and is only in the employment relationship with the corporation. Thus, between the plaintiff and the plaintiff, the plaintiff is in the employment relationship with the employee under Article 20 subparagraph 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes or in the other employment relationship under Article 20 subparagraph 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act or the "a person who lives together with a person

4. If so, the disposition of this case where the transfer of the Plaintiff’s shares is deemed to be illegal on the premise that the Plaintiff was in a special relationship with Nonparty 1, and the transfer of other assets under Article 23(1)3 of the Income Tax Act, and the disposition of this case where the transfer income tax and defense tax are imposed on the Plaintiff’s remaining arguments, without any need to determine the remainder of the claims, the Plaintiff’s claim seeking its revocation is justified,

Judges Kim Sung-il (Presiding Judge)