logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2016.11.18 2015구합79024
증여세부과처분취소
Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) was separated from D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) for the purpose of selling communications equipment and was established on May 14, 2007.

B. On February 23, 2012, C purchased 20,400 shares issued C from D in KRW 10,00 per share (hereinafter “instant 1 transaction”), and on February 24, 201, C sold the entire shares to E, who is the representative director of C, in KRW 10,00 per share.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant secondary transaction.” After March 20, 2012, E sold KRW 6,600 per share to Plaintiff A, an employee of C, for KRW 900, KRW 1,200, KRW 2,400, KRW 900, KRW 600 per share to G, KRW 6,600.

(hereinafter referred to as “the total employees of the above C” are the employees of the instant case, and the Plaintiffs’ transactions in each of the said transactions are referred to as “the third transaction, and the traded shares are referred to as “the shares” of the instant case.

The Defendants deemed that the Plaintiffs, as a specially related person E, acquired the instant shares at a price lower than KRW 71,268 per share price according to the supplementary evaluation method under the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11845, May 28, 2013; hereinafter “Gift”), the Defendants determined and announced the gift tax amount of KRW 7,148,170, respectively, to the Plaintiff on March 20, 2015, by applying Article 35(1)1 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act.

(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition in this case"). . [Grounds for recognition] . 【Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 10 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 to 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. To make entries in the attached statutes concerned;

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. As to the allegation regarding the other party to the transaction, the Plaintiffs did not acquire the instant shares from E, but acquired directly from D.

arrow