Daegu High Court 201Nu2911 ( November 23, 2012)

It seems that the capital reduction has been actually made with the amount obtained by deducting interest paid in advance, so the initial taxation illegality was found to be unlawful.

(2) In light of the substance over form principle, the capital reduction resolution was not deemed to have been made in accordance with the minutes of the special shareholders' meeting under the substance over form principle. It seems that the capital reduction resolution was made because the amount obtained by deducting interest paid in advance as stated in the actual resolution was paid in accordance with the equity ratio as the capital reduction price. Therefore, the initial taxation

2012du28513 Gross income and revocation of disposition

LAA and 3 others

2 others than the Head of Dong-gu Tax Office

Daegu High Court Decision 2011Nu2911 Decided November 23, 2012

June 14, 2013

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 17 (1) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8144 of Dec. 30, 2006) provides that income derived from constructive dividend as dividend in subparagraph 3 shall be the dividend income, and Article 17 (2) provides that "the value of money or other property acquired by a stockholder due to the retirement of stocks or the decrease of capital or the retirement, withdrawal, or investment of a stockholder or an employee or an investor or an investor in excess of the amount required for the stockholder, employee, or investor to acquire the stocks or investment in question shall be deemed to have been distributed to the stockholder, employee, or other investor in question.

2. In full view of the adopted evidence, the court below held that the plaintiffs held 37,200 shares, 60% of the total shares issued by BB (hereinafter "the shares of this case"), and the plaintiffs agreed to retire the shares of this case with major shareholders and management of BB around June 2006, and that the price of the shares of this case was 00 won when the house sale business of BB was completed on or around March 31, 2010, when the house sale business was being implemented by BB, the price of the shares of this case was 00 won (60 billion won x 60%) or 00% of the total shares issued by BB, and that the plaintiffs did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as stated in the reasoning and the records of the court below's determination that the plaintiffs violated the rules of logic and resolution of 00 won and 00% of the total amount paid for the above house sale business, and that it did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as seen above.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.