beta
Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit
Seoul High Court 2012Nu35964 (2013.03)
Title
(C) If there is a legitimate cause for transaction practice, the gift tax is illegal.
Summary
(1) In full view of the fact that the acquisition of the shares in this case appears to be due to the investor’s expectation that the share price will rise due to the merger, etc., the act of acquiring the shares does not constitute acquisition of the property at a price significantly lower than the market price without justifiable grounds in light of transaction practices.
Related statutes
Article 35 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act
Cases
2013Du15606 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax
Plaintiff-Appellee
AAA
Defendant-Appellant
Head of Sungnam Tax Office
Judgment of the lower court
Seoul High Court Decision 2012Nu35964 Decided July 3, 2013
Imposition of Judgment
November 28, 2013
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
When an administrative disposition is revoked, such disposition shall lose its validity and no longer exists, and a revocation lawsuit against a non-existent administrative disposition is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du18202, Dec. 13, 2012).
According to the records, the Defendant, after filing the instant appeal, knew of the fact that the instant disposition was revoked ex officio on August 19, 2013, which was after the filing of the appeal, and thus, sought revocation of the disposition that did not have been extinguished and became unlawful as it did not have any interest in the lawsuit.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and since this case is sufficient for the court to directly judge, the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed, and the defendant shall be borne by the defendant pursuant to Article 32 of the Administrative Litigation Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices