Seoul High Court 2012Nu2520 (Law No. 13, 2012)

Cho High Court Decision 201Do4023 (No. 13, 2011)

Any disposition that the former owner considers as the actual transferor by taking over a corporation dissolved and registered for the evasion of capital gains tax and entering it as a formal party to the land transfer;

(2) In light of the fact that the corporation whose dissolution has been registered, acquired the corporation, registered as the representative director, entered into a sales contract for the land on the date of registration as the representative director, and that there was no business activity other than the purchase and sale of the land in this case, the corporation shall be deemed to have entered as the formal party by acquiring the corporation dissolved and registered to evade the transfer income tax

2012Du19274 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

Lee AA et al.

Head of Sejong District Tax Office et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 2012Nu2520 Decided July 13, 2012

July 25, 2013:

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate brief not timely filed). According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below determined that the disposition of this case was lawful, on the following grounds: (a) transaction on the land, etc. in this case owned by the plaintiffs was conducted in the form of transfer by the plaintiffs to OOO, and OOOOO again; (b) the plaintiffs actually transferred the land, etc. in this case to OO construction industry corporation, which was dissolved and registered, and entered as a formal party to evade capital gains tax; (c) the substance of the transaction in this case was directly transferred the land, etc. in this case to OO construction industry corporation; and (d) the land, etc. in this case was calculated and notified on the same premise. In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles, prohibition of retroactive taxation under the Framework Act on National Taxes, taxation principle, and other relevant Acts and subordinate statutes.