logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.12.04 2015누46170
증여세등부과처분취소
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. B changed its trade name to C on December 5, 2007 (hereinafter “instant company”). Since its incorporation, the instant company owned the entire 5,000 shares of the instant company in substance, but the current status of the instant company’s shares was changed due to title trust with the employees of the instant company as indicated below.

B 3,000 B B 3,000 B 60 B 3,000 B 60 B 3,000 B 60 B 3,000 B 3,000 B 60 B 3,000 B 60 B 5,000 1,0000 A 1,000 20 A 1,000 E 20 20 1,000 E 1,000 E 20 E 1,000 1,0000 20 20 1,0000 F1,000 20 20 F1,0020 G 1,000 G 200 G 1,0000 1,000 G 1,0000 G 1,0050 0,0050 0,0050 05,005

B. On February 22, 2011, the director of the Central Regional Tax Office: (a) deemed that B, upon conducting a tax investigation with respect to the instant company, entrusted the instant company’s shares to the Plaintiff for the purpose of tax avoidance; (b) notified the Plaintiff of the pre-announcement of taxation on August 2012; and (c) notified the Defendant of the taxation

C. On December 1, 2013, the Defendant rendered each of the instant dispositions imposing gift tax of KRW 101,254,80 and penalty tax of KRW 48,045,402 on the Plaintiff.

On February 21, 2014, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with each of the instant dispositions and filed a tax appeal on February 21, 2014, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on June 12, 2014.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 2-2, 3-1 through 18, 4-1, 2, 2-4, Eul evidence 1-1, 5-1, 2, 6 through 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion B, while appointing the Plaintiff as a director, held a title trust with the Plaintiff’s shares of this case equivalent to 20%. The above title trust did not have the purpose of tax avoidance, but rather did not have the objective of tax avoidance, enhancement of the affiliation of officers and employees and able

arrow