logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2016.08.18 2015구합11900
양도소득세감액경정거부처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 25, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a share swap and underwriting agreement (hereinafter “instant agreement”) with the Plaintiff to the effect that “D”) shares of 58,824 shares (the Plaintiff’s 58,766 shares owned by the Plaintiff’s Plaintiff’s 58,76 shares) are invested in C, and in return, take over 28,824 shares, 49% of the shares of C’s new shares of 30,000 shares, while B invested in C with the amount equivalent to USD 30,000,000,000 shares of C’s new shares, in return, invested in C, and made a share swap and underwriting agreement (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

B. On November 27, 2013, the Plaintiff invested the instant shares in kind to C in accordance with the instant agreement and changed the title in C future.

C. Since March 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a modified agreement with the holding company E to the effect that “C will be an affiliated company of the holding company, and the existing shareholders of C shall acquire E in the same proportion as C’s equity shares.” From March 2014, the Plaintiff acquired 22,858 shares of E (38.9%) instead of C’s new shares.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff, separate from the instant agreement, transferred D shares 2,500 shares to F on December 18, 2013. On February 28, 2014, the Plaintiff scheduled the transfer price of KRW 28,569,250,529, acquisition price of KRW 1,725,79,797,028, and necessary expenses to the Defendant as KRW 17,257,969, the transfer income tax of KRW 5,364,739,10 for the year 2013.

E. The Defendant, on April 1, 2014, notified the Plaintiff of KRW 5,416,240,60 of the transfer income tax reverted to the year 2013, as the Plaintiff did not pay the said transfer income tax.

F. As to the transfer income tax that the Plaintiff scheduled, the Plaintiff did not invest USD 30,000,000 as the other party to the instant agreement was not invested in accordance with the agreement, the transfer of the instant shares did not constitute a commercial transfer, and even if it constitutes a commercial transfer for domestic affairs, it constitutes a commercial transfer.

arrow