Whether the preemptive right to new shares and securities transferred in 1999 are subject to capital gains tax.

Since preemptive rights and securities transferred in 199 are indicated as shares, etc. under the former Income Tax Act and the Enforcement Decree thereof, the principle of no taxation without the law is clearly interpreted. Therefore, capital gains tax cannot be imposed on shares, etc. as they include preemptive rights and securities

Article 94 of the former Income Tax Act

1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

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

3. 제1심 판결의 주문 제1항 중 〞2005. 4. 1.‶을 모두 〞2004. 4. 1.‶로 경정한다.

1. Purport of claim

Defendant ○○ Tax Office’s imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 912,728,490 and KRW 89,928,000 on April 1, 2004, which was reverted to Plaintiff ○○○○○ on April 1, 2009, by the head of Defendant ○○ Tax Office, of KRW 89,928,000 on April 1, 2004, which was reverted to Plaintiff ○○○○○○○, on April 1, 2004, imposed capital gains tax of KRW 89,928,000 on Plaintiff ○○○, and that of KRW 45,264,00 on Plaintiff ○○○○ on April 1, 200.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are dismissed in entirety.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

이 법원의 판결이유는 제1심 판결 중 3쪽 10행의 ̋2005. 4. 1.‶을 ̋2004. 4. 1.‶로 고치는 외에는 제1심 판결의 이유란 기재와 같으므로, 행정소송법 제8조 제2항, 민사소송법 제420조에 의하여 이를 그대로 인용한다.

2. Conclusion

그렇다면 제1심 판결은 정당하므로 피고들의 항소는 이유 없어 이를 모두 기각하되, 제1심 판결의 주문 제1항 중 ̋2005. 4. 1〝(3곳)은 각 ̋2004. 4. 1〝의 오기임이 명백하므로 이를 경정하기로 하여 주문과 같이 판결한다.