logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2012. 01. 26. 선고 2011두14579 판결
주식증여 여부는 의사의 합치와 사실상 주주로서의 권리를 행사할 수 있는 지위를 획득하였는지 여부로 판단함[국패]
Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit

Seoul High Court 2010Nu29323 (Law No. 25, 2011)

Case Number of the previous trial

Cho High-depth 2008west27 Asia (O. 30, 2009)

Title

disposition that considers that the transfer of shares constitutes a gift is illegal;

Summary

The disposition imposing tax on deeming that the transfer of shares constitutes a gift is unlawful on the ground that the transfer of shares was not paid without compensation, and that the transfer of shares is not immediately acknowledged, and is merely an intention to deem that there was a transaction of shares in appearance. The allegation in the grounds of appeal alleging legality based on the complete taxation method is without merit.

Cases

2011Du14579 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

Plaintiff-Appellee

LAA

Defendant-Appellant

Head of Seodaemun Tax Office

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul High Court Decision 2010Nu29323 Decided May 25, 2011

Imposition of Judgment

January 26, 2012

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6780 of Dec. 18, 2002) provides that, if any donated property falls under any of the following as of the date of donation due to another person’s donation, gift tax shall be imposed on such donated property in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and Article 23(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that, if a person who acquires property by another’s donation is a resident, all donated property shall be considered as being donated by the resident, and that, if the donated property is a shareholder, the ownership of the pertinent donated property shall be deemed as being transferred to the Plaintiff without the consent of the Supreme Court in light of the logical and empirical principles and reasoning of the transfer of the transferred shares or the exercise of shareholders’ rights, the lower court determined that the transfer of shares was unlawful or without the consent of the Plaintiff as of 70th day before the date of transfer of the shares, and that the transfer of shares is based on the premise that the transfer of shares was made in accordance with the foregoing provision.

arrow