logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.09.27 2017누46266
증여세부과처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiffs' appeals against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, such as accepting the judgment of the court of first instance, is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except to supplement or add the judgment as stated in the following (3). As such, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. A correction of the 6 pages 6 up to 7 pages A through 7 pages 1 of the 6th 7th 7th 3rd 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th "1,230,213,303" to “329,830,025 won” to “329,830,025 7th 9th 8th 7th 7th 7th 6th 10th 6th 6th 10th 10th 6th 6th “41,35,333 won” to “17,613,721 won”.

3. Supplement and addition of judgments;

A. In relation to the acquisition of the Plaintiff’s shares on October 8, 2013, Plaintiff B’s acquisition of the Plaintiff’s shares on October 8, 2013, the Plaintiffs asserted that, as a subjective element of the tax avoidance, the objective of the tax avoidance is to form a subjective element, and even if not less than 2/3 of the shareholder’s voting rights are required for the dismissal of the director, two of the three shareholders are deemed necessary upon the advice of a certified judicial scrivener who is a legal expert. If Plaintiff B transferred the Plaintiff’s shares to Plaintiff B for the dismissal of the director based on such subjective perception, the Plaintiff had a clear subjective perception that title trust was made for the dismissal of the director, and further, the delinquent tax amount at the time of the title trust was not more than 1,580,000 won.

However, as recognized in the first instance judgment cited by this court, the burden of proving that there was no purpose of tax avoidance can be proved by proving that there was another purpose, other than the purpose of tax avoidance, with respect to the absence of the purpose of tax avoidance.

(c).

arrow