Article 94 of the Income Tax Act and the Enforcement Decree thereof shall not be null and void provisions.

As long as the Enforcement Decree clause clearly specifies the scope of other shareholders included in the scope of a major shareholder, it cannot be said that the provision is invalid because it deviates from the inherent limit of the scope of the major shareholder stipulated in the legal provision of this case.

Article 94 of the Income Tax Act

2015Nu62370. Revocation of notice of approval for reporting capital gains tax

**,000

*The Director of the Tax Office

2015.9 11

9 March 2016

ocil 23, 201

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

피고가 2014. 4. 25. 원고 권@@에게 한 2009년 귀속 양도소득세 1,109,368,140원(가산세 410,776,740원 포함), 2010년 귀속 양도소득세 1,132,841,340원(가산세 365,350,380원 포함), 2011년 귀속 양도소득세 294,731,970원(가산세 77,359,620원 포함), 2012년 귀속 양도소득세 257,891,600원(가산세 65,387,340원 포함)의 신고 시인 결정을 취소하고, 피고가 2014. 4. 25. 원고 유**에게 한 2010년 귀속 양도소득세 1,806,850원(가산세623,810원 포함), 2012년 귀속 양도소득세 433,810,740원(가산세 108,863,960원 포함)의 신고 시인 결정을 취소한다.

2. Purport of appeal

Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the plaintiffs falling under the order to revoke below shall be revoked.

피고가 2014. 4. 25. 원고 권@@에게 한 2009년 귀속 양도소득세의 가산세410,776,740원, 2010년 귀속 양도소득세의 가산세 365,350,380원, 2011년 귀속 양도소득세의 가산세 77,359,620원, 2012년 귀속 양도소득세의 가산세 65,387,340원의 신고시인 결정을 취소하고, 피고가 2014. 4. 25. 원고 유**에게 한 2010년 귀속 양도소득세의 가산세 623,810원, 2012년 귀속 양도소득세의 가산세 108,863,960원의 신고시인 결정을 취소한다.

1. Scope of adjudication of this court;

Although the Plaintiffs sought revocation as stated in the purport of the claim against the Defendant, the Plaintiffs appealed only on the penalty tax in the judgment of the first instance court after having rendered a judgment on a failure in its entirety, which is limited to the penalty tax portion.

2. Details of the disposition;

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it refers to Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (hereinafter the meaning of the abbreviationd language used in this part is the same as the judgment of the court of first instance).

3. Whether the penalty tax portion among the dispositions in the instant case is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

① In light of the fact that: (a) the Plaintiffs were living together or did not live together; (b) the Plaintiffs were unable to grasp the current status of holding shares of each other through information sharing with rights and interests for the past 20 years; (c) in the case of a collateral blood relative not living together, it is common for the economic life by forming a separate family unit after the withdrawal; (d) there is no reason to treat them as lineal blood relatives or spouse; and (c) there was no institutional device for the Plaintiffs to grasp the current status of holding shares of rights and interests through a financial institution or an issuer; and (e) there was no institutional device for the Plaintiffs to refuse to perform their capital gains tax liability.

B. Relevant statutes

This Court's explanation is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes added to the "related Acts and subordinate statutes" in the attached Form of the judgment of the court of first instance as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Under the tax law, where a taxpayer violates various obligations, such as a tax return and tax payment, without justifiable grounds, in order to facilitate the exercise of the right to impose taxes and the realization of a tax claim, an administrative sanction imposed as prescribed by the tax law, which does not include the taxpayer’s intentional and negligent acts, but does not constitute justifiable grounds that do not constitute a breach of duty (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du10780, Jun. 24, 2004).

2) 을 제1호증의 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 더하면, 원고 권@@은 2009년에는 **전자 주식 17,800주를 양도가액 9,963,613,000원에 양도하고, 2010년에는 **전자주

Food 10,667 shares were transferred in the transfer value of KRW 7,221,335,000, and* Electronic shares in 201 *

13,629 Shares are transferred to 12,01,456,734 won in the transfer value, and *** 9,886 shares to the extent that they are transferred to 9,130,67,00 won in the transfer value of 9,130,67,00 won in 201.

3) In addition to the above facts, there is no justifiable reason to believe that the plaintiffs are not negligent in neglecting their duty to report and pay capital gains tax in full view of the following circumstances known by the purport of the entire facts and arguments. The plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

① The legal provision of this case and the enforcement decree of this case provide clear and meaningful tax requirements and effects, and the Supreme Court has already ruled that the enforcement decree of this case cannot be deemed invalid provisions against Article 10 of the Constitution, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Du4394, Nov. 10, 2006).

② Since the transfer value of the shares held by the Plaintiffs is close to the market price of 10 billion won, which is the criteria for determining the majority shareholder, and the transfer of the shares by the Plaintiffs cannot be deemed to have been one-time, it is necessary for the Plaintiffs to attempt to find out the current status of shares owned by their relatives and other related parties in order to avoid the application of the legal provisions of this case and the Enforcement Decree provisions of this case. However, there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiffs attempted to do so.

③ The Plaintiffs asserted that it is impossible for them to grasp the current status of holding shares of each other through the sharing of information with rights and interests, since they did not contact with each other for the past 20 years, and they were in the same way as South Korea. However, the statement of No. 1-4 alone is insufficient to acknowledge the above Plaintiffs’ assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

④ 소득세법 등에 타인의 주식 보유현황을 파악할 수 있는 제도적 장치가 별도로 마련되어 있지 않다거나 상장회사가 실질주주명부의 공개를 거부한다는 사유만으로 부부인 원고들이 원고 권@@의 누나 권&&의 **전자 주식보유 상황을 파악하여 이에 따라 양도소득세를 신고・납부할 것을 기대하는 것이 무리였다고 할 수 없다.

⑤ 원고들은 '동거하지 않는 방계혈족'의 경우 ㉠ 출가 이후 별도의 가족 단위를 형성하여 경제생활을 영위하는 것이 보통인 점, ㉡ 형제간에 당연히 공통의 경제적 이해관계를 가진다고 볼 수 없는 점, ㉢ 유산 상속 등의 문제로 오히려 갈등을 빚거나 남과 마찬가지로 살아가는 경우도 매우 빈번한 점, ㉣ 형법 친족상도례 규정에서 직계혈족 및 배우자와 달리 취급하고 있는 점 등을 고려하면, '동거하지 않는 방계혈족'을 직계혈족이나 배우자와는 달리 보아야 한다고 주장한다. 그러나 원고들이 들고 있는 ㉠ 내지 ㉢ 사정들은 직계혈족이나 배우자에 있어서도 해당할 수 있고, 형법상 친족상 도례의 입법 목적 및 규율 내용과 소득세법상 대주주 관련 과세요건의 그것이 동일하다고 볼 수 없으므로, 특수관계인이 '동거하지 않는 방계혈족'이라고 하여 직계혈족이나 배우자와 다르게 보기는 어렵다.

4. Conclusion

If so, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and all appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed due to the lack of grounds.

D. It is so decided as per Disposition.