Seoul Administrative Court-2017-Gu Group-81543 ( November 13, 2018)

The transfer tax rate of 20% shall apply to non-listed stocks transferred by the large shareholder.

According to the literal interpretation of the language and text, it is reasonable to see that the 'large shareholder' under Article 94 (1) 3 (a) of the Income Tax Act includes all of the large shareholders of the listed corporation and the unlisted corporation, and thus, in the case of the unlisted stock, 20% transfer income tax rate is applied to the

Article 104 of the Income Tax Act

Seoul High Court-2018-Nu 76462 (Law No. 15, 2019)

HanO et al.

O Head of the tax office and 4

2019.04.03

oly 15, 2019

1. The plaintiffs' appeals against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

1. Quotation, etc. of judgment in the first instance;

This court's reasoning is the same as the reasons stated in the judgment of the first instance except for the supplement or addition of the judgment as follows 2. Thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Supplement and addition of judgments;

The plaintiffs asserts as follows. Since a systematic interpretation of Article 94 (1) 3 (a) of the former Income Tax Act, considering the literal interpretation and amendment history of Article 94 (1) 3 (a) of the former Income Tax Act, the "stocks, etc. of a stock-listed corporation" can be interpreted as a "large stockholder", a large stockholder refers to only a large stockholder who owns the shares of a stock-listed corporation, and also a case of unlisted stocks shall not be interpreted extensively. Meanwhile, Article 157 (4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act shall include cases of unlisted stocks in the concept of "large stockholder

In light of the language and structure of the relevant statutes, legislative intent, and amendment history, etc. as stated in the judgment of the first instance court cited by this court, it is reasonable to view that Article 104 (1) 11 (b) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act is applicable to a major shareholder who owns unlisted stocks as the "major shareholder" under Article 104 (1) 11 (b) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act if he satisfies the requirements under Article 157 (4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, and that Article 157 (4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act is invalid because it exceeds the limit delegated by Article 94 (1) 3 (a)

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants should be dismissed in its entirety due to the lack of reasonable grounds. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is just in its conclusion, the plaintiffs' appeals against the defendants are dismissed in its entirety due to the lack