logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2017.08.24 2017구합89
취득세부과처분취소 등
Text

1. The plaintiff (appointed party)'s claim is all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “the savings bank of this case”) is an oligopolistic stockholder of the savings bank of this case, who is engaged in credit installment savings business, receipt of deposits and installment savings, loan business, etc., and the Plaintiff (Appointed Party; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the designated parties (hereinafter “Plaintiff, etc.”) are oligopolistic stockholders of the savings bank of this case.

B. The savings bank of this case acquired each of the land in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-si, the land and its ground buildings of the same Gu, and the building Nos. 108 and 704 of the same Gu E (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant real estate”).

C. Meanwhile, the number of shares owned by the Plaintiff, etc. among the 800,000 shares issued by the instant savings bank was a total of 548,932 shares (68.32 shares ratio) before September 15, 201, as stated in the statement on changes in the attached shares, etc., and the total of 558,932 shares (69.87 shares ratio) on September 16, 201, was changed to the total of 558,932 shares (69.87 shares ratio) on May 31, 2013, the total of 562,156 shares (70.27 shares ratio) on August 2, 2013, changed to the total of 606,156 shares (7.7%) on August 2, 2013, and the total of 610,156 shares ratio (7.27%) on December 5, 2014.

(G) The shares of the said savings bank acquired after May 31, 2013 by the Plaintiff, etc. (hereinafter “instant shares”). D.

The defendant is the plaintiff et al.

As stated in Paragraph (5) of Article 7 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 13636, Dec. 29, 2015), which newly established a joint and several tax liability for oligopolistic stockholders of a corporation, was acquired before January 1, 2014, but did not allocate shares of the Plaintiff et al. and did not individually deliver a tax notice to the Plaintiff et al., and only deliver it to the designated representative F, instead of delivering it to the Plaintiff et al.

arrow