Seocho 2015 Schedules2381 (Law No. 10, 2015)

In full view of the content of capital gains tax, the signature signed, and the fact that financial data are not submitted, the instant disposition was not erroneous.

Comprehensively taking account of all the circumstances, such as the fact that it is difficult to believe that the plan for redemption of shares and waterworks price and the certificate for lending money are in fact, and the financial materials to support it are not submitted, the fact that the shares of this case are transferred can be recognized without paying the acquisition price, and it cannot be deemed that there was any error in the disposition of this case where gift tax was imposed

Article 2 (Gift Tax Taxables) of Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

2015Guhap78069 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

LAA

BB Director of the Tax Office

oly, 2016.17

2016.04.07

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 00,000,000 (including additional tax) on the Plaintiff on February 10, 2015 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From August 30, 2012 to October 26, 2012, the Director of the Regional Tax Office: (a) conducted an investigation of stock fluctuation with respect to DD Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”); and (b) on November 10, 201, the Plaintiff deemed that the Plaintiff did not pay the acquisition price while taking over 00,000 non-listed shares issued by the instant company (hereinafter “instant shares”) from RVE; and (c) notified the Defendant, the tax authority, who is the Defendant.

B. On February 10, 2015, the Defendant considered the substance of the above transaction as the donation of unlisted stocks, and assessed the value per share of the instant stocks as KRW 0,000,000,000 (=0,000 x 000,000) and determined and notified the Plaintiff on February 10, 2015 (including additional tax on negligent tax returns of KRW 00,000,000,000 for additional tax of KRW 00,000 for additional tax of KRW 0,000 for additional tax of KRW 0,000 for additional tax of KRW 0,00 for additional tax of KRW 0,00).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on May 11, 2015, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the said appeal on August 10, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff received the instant shares and paid the purchase price to the KE, it is not a donation of the instant shares. The Plaintiff borrowed money from the KE with respect to KRW 00,000,000 out of the purchase price, and made and paid a repayment plan for the remainder. Therefore, the instant disposition was unlawful since it erred by misapprehending the factual basis.

B. Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 5 as a whole, the Gangwon-do Tax Office submitted to the head of the DongF Tax Office on December 6, 201, a transfer income tax base return and a statement of payment to the effect that the pertinent shares were transferred to KRW 0 billion. In the transfer of shares and the transfer contract, the Gangwon-do Tax Office stated that the pertinent shares were transferred to the Plaintiff at KRW 0 billion (calculated as KRW 5,000). The Plaintiff, upon undergoing a tax investigation around October 2012, after receiving the tax investigation, completed a written confirmation that the Plaintiff acquired the instant shares from Gangwon-do Tax Office, but did not pay the purchase price, and signed and submitted it.

In full view of all the circumstances, such as the fact that the Plaintiff paid the acquisition price to the Gangwon-E, the Plaintiff’s plan for redemption of the quantity of shares and water supply (Evidence 2) and the money borrowed (Evidence 3) submitted by the Plaintiff on the fact that the Plaintiff paid the acquisition price to the Gangwon-E, the fact that the Plaintiff did not pay the acquisition price and transferred the shares from the Gangwon-E without paying the acquisition price, and it cannot be deemed that there was any error in the disposition of this case where the gift tax was imposed by deeming it as a gift.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is not accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.