Seoul Administrative Court 2012Gudan22945 ( December 25, 2013)

The amount paid by the transferee to the employees of the issuing corporation shall be included in the plaintiffs' transfer margin.

Since the transferee of the instant shares had to pay part of the purchase price to the Plaintiffs in advance to the employees of the issuing corporation at the time of the transfer contract with the Plaintiffs, it is reasonable to calculate the transfer margin of the Plaintiffs including this.

2013Nu30294 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax, etc.

KimA and 16 others

BB Head of tax office and 8

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Gudan22945 decided September 25, 2013

September 26, 2014

October 31, 2014

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. Each defendant shall revoke the imposition of each transfer income tax and securities transaction tax as stated in the [Attachment Table 1] Disposition List to each individual.

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

This judgment is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition of the following matters, and thus, it is based on Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(1) On December 1, 2005, Chapter 3, Paragraph 10, Paragraph 10, Paragraph 10, Paragraph 10, Paragraph 1, is changed to "B around December 2005," respectively.

(2) The number of pages 5 shall be "the same day" as " March 11, 2008."

③ No. 3 of No. 10, “No. 3” was added to “(thisCC, the director in charge of BB construction’s accounting, stated that it was a corrective report and disclosure that it was made with false content that it was made by a corrective report and disclosure, and that it was a forced contract, and consistent with the original written confirmation.”

(4) The parallel 5 to 10 pages 16 shall be improved as follows:

"Along with this, the plaintiffs asserted that DD's share value fell below that of DD's agreement to pay special incentive in labor union, and that DD's revised contract was concluded by allowing D's reduction of share transfer price at the request of BB construction. However, in light of the contents and preparation process of the pending pending agreement, it is clear that D's special incentive subject for labor union is EE or management shareholders, not D', but E's transferor of D's stocks. In addition, BB construction shows that the revised contract of this case was made at the request of the plaintiffs, who are management shareholders, not BB construction, (the above BB construction accounting department stated that this contract was made by coercion at the trial). Accordingly, the above plaintiffs' assertion on a different premise is without merit."

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case shall be dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.