early 2011:0692 ( November 03, 2011)

When considering the contents of the certificate, etc., the plaintiff seems to have transferred the shares in possession and received the honorarium, so tax disposition legitimacy is legitimate.

In light of the fact that the hospital ownership shares sales contract and receipt were prepared, and the amount unpaid in the certificate was set off against the transfer price of 5% of the hospital ownership shares, the Plaintiff appears to have acquired shares in possession and received the price or honorarium, and therefore, the original tax disposition legitimacy.

2012Guhap593 Global Income and Revocation of Disposition

Shin XX

The director of the tax office

September 5, 2012

September 19, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposing global income tax of KRW 000 on the Plaintiff on December 1, 2010 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was a director (ownership shares 40%) of the Paju Hospital (the president of the XX Hospital) at a medical corporation XX foundation, the head of the medical corporation, and Nonparty 1 was a director (ownership shares 50%) of the Paju Hospital, the president of the Paju Hospital, and the director (ownership shares 50%) of the XX hospital.

B. On September 13, 2010 through September 30, 2010, the Director of the Daejeon Regional Tax Office entered into an integrated investigation of income tax with the Plaintiff and leapA from September 30, 2010, and confirmed on December 24, 2007 that the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with leapA to sell 40% of the shares of Y hospital to leapA, a joint founder, for 00 won, and failed to report the income accrued upon receiving 00 won and 5% of the shares of P hospital from leapA (00 won).

C. On December 1, 2010, the Defendant: (a) considered the Plaintiff’s share purchase price of KRW 000 as the total amount of KRW 000 as other income under the Income Tax Act; and (b) imposed a disposition of KRW 000 on global income tax for the year 2007 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on February 8, 201, but was dismissed on November 3, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 3, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The agreement between the Plaintiff and leapA is an exchange agreement between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff would transfer 40% of the shares of the leapA hospital to the Plaintiff, and leapA would transfer 5% of the shares of the leapA hospital to the Plaintiff, and leapA would pay 00 won to the Plaintiff. As such, the global income tax should be imposed on the basis of 000 won that the Plaintiff actually received. The Defendant’s instant disposition on a different premise is without merit.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

In light of the following circumstances, i.e., the Plaintiff’s share sales contract and receipt to the effect that on December 24, 2007, the Plaintiff was paid KRW 00 when transferring 40% of the shares in the public hospital XX ownership to the Plaintiff on the same day, and apA was paid KRW 00 when transferring 5% of the shares in the XX hospital ownership to the Plaintiff on the same day, apA made up the share sales contract and receipt to the effect that apA was paid KRW 00,00,000,000 won on December 21, 2007, and 24, 2000 won on December 24, 2007, and the Plaintiff’s claim to the Plaintiff on December 24, 2007 that the Plaintiff was paid KRW 00,000,000,000 to the Plaintiff on December 24, 2007, the Plaintiff’s claim to the Plaintiff on the payment of KRW 50,010.

3. Conclusion

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