logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.04.14 2014누52130
증여세등부과처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. Grounds for the court’s explanation concerning this case in this case are the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance

2. D.

(2) In addition to the following cases, paragraph (1) (as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, paragraphs 6 to 10, 3) (as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance) shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. 고쳐 쓰는 부분 (2) 특수관계에 대하여 ㈎ 원고의 주장 취지 상법상 강제소각과 임의소각은 모두 주주총회특별결의, 채권자보호절차, 주식소각절차를 거쳐야만 소각의 효력이 발생하므로 그 절차를 마쳤을 때에 감자에 따른 이익의 증여가 이루어진 것으로 보아야 한다.

Therefore, whether there is a special relationship should be determined not by the resolution date of the general meeting of shareholders for capital reduction, but by the date of the completion of the stock retirement procedure.

On the other hand, an employee refers to an officer, a commercial employee, and other persons in an employment contract relationship (see Article 4 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act). As can be seen from the phrase “other persons in an employment contract relationship”, an employee is premised on an employment contract relationship (actual subordinate relationship).

However, the company of this case was established by investing 80% in B and investing 20% on the condition that the plaintiff will be in charge of management.

Therefore, since the Plaintiff and B were in a joint management relationship before the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders for capital reduction, the Plaintiff was merely the manager of the instant company, not the employee. Since the capital reduction became effective, it does not constitute an employee because the Plaintiff managed the instant company solely with 100% shares after the capital reduction became effective.

㈏ 판단 감자를 위한 주주총회결의일인 2008. 5. 27. 당시 적용되던 국세기본법 제21조를 보면 증여세는 증여에 의하여 재산을 취득한 때에 납세의무가...

arrow