Supreme Court Decision 2014Du5392 ( October 15, 2015)

Cho High Court Decision 201Do3522 ( November 24, 2011)

(Reversal and Returning) The gift of real estate to black juristic person in the comprehensive gift tax principle shall not be taxed under Article 42(1)3 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act.

The gift of real estate to black corporations does not constitute "the acquisition limit of business or organizational change, etc." under the latter part of Article 42 (1) 3 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act.

Article 42 (Donation, etc. of Other Profits)

2015Nu1955

leAA

The Director of Gangnam District Office

Supreme Court Decision 2014Du5392 Decided October 15, 2015

December 24, 2015

1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part concerning the imposition of gift tax OO(including additional tax OOO) shall be revoked;

2. The part of the instant lawsuit pertaining to the imposition of gift tax OO(including additional tax OOO) shall be dismissed.

3. 1/10 of the total costs of the litigation shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the Defendant, respectively.

1. Purport of claim

On July 1, 2011, the imposition of the gift tax by the Defendant on the Plaintiff and the imposition of the gift tax △△△△△ (including the additional tax △△△△△△) shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

A. Plaintiff: The part against the Plaintiff in the judgment of the first instance is revoked. The Defendant’s imposition disposition of gift tax △△△△△△ (including additional tax △△△△△) against the Plaintiff on July 1, 2011 shall be revoked.

B. Defendant: The part against the Defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim corresponding to the revoked part is dismissed.

1. Scope of the judgment of this court;

"The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant seeking revocation of each disposition stated in the first claim, but the first instance court revoked the disposition of imposition of gift tax OOOO, dismissed the plaintiff's remaining claims, and dismissed the plaintiff's claims against the plaintiff and the defendant, and dismissed the plaintiff's claims against the plaintiff in the first instance court prior to remand. The court prior to remand revoked the part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance, and dismissed the plaintiff's claims against the plaintiff falling under the revoked part. The plaintiff appealed on the part of imposition of gift tax OOOO of gift tax in the judgment prior to remand, and the fact that only the plaintiff reversed the part of imposition of gift tax OO of gift tax in the judgment prior to remand and remanded this part of the case to this court is obvious in the record." According to the above facts, the part of the disposition of imposition of gift tax by △△△△△△ in the judgment prior to remand was dismissed by the first instance court, and thus, it became final and conclusive without the plaintiff's appeal as to the judgment prior to remand the plaintiff's appeal as to that part.

2. Details of the disposition;

"The content to be explained by this Court concerning this part is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of second instance No. 20, No. 3, No. 20, No. 1, 200), and it is quoted by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act."

In full view of the purport of the argument in Eul evidence No. 12, the defendant can recognize the fact that the defendant revoked the imposition of OO on December 10, 2015, each of the dispositions of this case, which were after the case was remanded to the court of appeal. Accordingly, the disposition of OOO of the gift tax of this case as of December 13, 2012 is null and void. Accordingly, the part concerning the imposition of OO of the gift tax of this case regarding the disposition of imposition of OO of the gift tax of this case as of the lawsuit of this case is seeking the revocation of the disposition that is not extinguished, and thus, it becomes unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Du18202, Dec. 13, 201

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the disposition of imposition of gift tax on the lawsuit in this case should be dismissed in an unlawful manner, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair, and the part concerning the disposition of imposition of gift tax on the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the lawsuit in this case shall be dismissed, and the total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in accordance with Article 32 of the Administrative Litigation Act, and the remainder of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in accordance with the decision of the court of first instance