Fictitious dividend in case of transferring equity shares and receiving cash payments;

It shall not be deemed as fictitious dividend because it is difficult to view that he/she has acquired real estate by transferring his/her equity shares and has acquired real estate from a corporation and has acquired it in excess of his/her own shares by

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 327,94,840 against the Plaintiff on April 2, 2007 shall be revoked.

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

same as the entry.

1. Details of the instant disposition;

(a) Facts of recognition;

The following facts are recognized, either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the 1, 2, and 3 of evidence Nos. 3, 2, and 1 of title B and the purport of the whole pleadings:

(1) On March 10, 2005, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the transfer of ownership in its name with respect to the EE-dong 601-34 square meters, 1,024.8 square meters, 601-35 square meters, and 771,162, 1,024,800 square meters of equity among 601-35 square meters and 1,024.8 square meters, and its ground buildings (hereinafter referred to as the “real estate”).

(2) Accordingly, the Defendant imposed global income tax of KRW 419,729,030 on the Plaintiff on April 11, 2007, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant real estate was paid for the transfer of 8,183 shares to the Nonparty Company, and on the ground that the gains from transfer constituted deemed dividend under Article 17(2)1 of the Income Tax Act, the Plaintiff imposed global income tax of KRW 419,729,030 on the non-party company for the year 205, and thereafter, the remaining tax amount of global income tax of KRW 91,734,186 is KRW 327,94,840 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition should be revoked on the grounds that it is unlawful for the following reasons.

(1) The Plaintiff acquired the instant real estate in return for the transfer of the Plaintiff’s equity shares to AA according to an agreement with the Plaintiff, who is the largest equity holder of the Nonparty Company, and the Nonparty Company also did not take all the procedures to reduce the capital through the Plaintiff’s equity swap regarding the Plaintiff’s equity shares. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant real estate cannot be deemed as the constructive dividend income under Article 17(2) Item 1 of the Income Tax

(2) Even if the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant real estate by domestic affairs is deemed as the constructive dividend income under Article 17(2)1 of the Income Tax Act, since it was already transferred on March 31, 1995, the time of attribution of the right to taxation should also be deemed as 195, and the global income tax for the year 195, which was five years after this, has already expired.

(3) In addition, in evaluating the Plaintiff’s acquisition value of equity shares, there is an error of law not so, even though it should be assessed and assessed by reflecting the real estate value owned by the Nonparty Company as of 2005.

(b) Fact of recognition;

The following facts are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned evidence: (a) evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 6; and (b) evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 6; and (c) a witness’s testimony and the overall purport

(1) Merger, etc. of the non-party company

(A) On February 1989, the Plaintiff, and three companies, such as Dosi, Dosi, Dosi, KimB, and Dosi, a limited liability company operated by the Plaintiff, were merged into Ddosi, a limited liability company, a limited liability company, a limited liability company operated by the CC, which had the lowest insurance premium efficiency at the time, in order to overcome operational difficulties. A limited liability company, a limited liability company, after changing its trade name to the non-party company, combined the aforementioned Dosi and MM taxi with a company, and then a regular AA was appointed as a representative director, the Plaintiff, and the KimB director, respectively.

(B) On the other hand, after the above merger, the non-party company continued to operate the business at the place where the Dcab operated the business, and around 1992, the non-party company established the limited liability company's ○○ Improvement at the place where the Dosi and MM transportation operated the business, and the plaintiff and Jung-A was employed as the common representative director.

(2) Agreements between the Plaintiff, the AA, the KimB, and thisCC

(A) Since then, while the plaintiff, regularA, and KimB operated the ○○ Improvement for the non-party company and the non-party company, the dispute occurred due to the accusation of the plaintiff, regularA, KimB, and thisCC on March 31, 1995 for 33.9% of the previous shares of the plaintiff on March 31, 1995 for 33.9% of the plaintiff, regularA 34.5% of the KimB, KimB, and thisCC 31.6% of the previous shares. In lieu of each of their shares, the plaintiff established the 601-34 site and 310 shares in Changwon-si, EEA 601-34 site and 60-135 site and 108 square meters and 108 high-rise and 2nd floor building, "the non-party 100 non-party 1 and the new corporation, "the non-party 2's right to permit the maintenance of factories and key facilities", "the non-party 1 and the new corporation 60.

(B) Although it was not able to establish a new corporation and transfer all the non-party company business taxi and license rights on the grounds of the regulation, etc. of relevant laws and regulations, in accordance with the instant agreement, the Plaintiff operated the non-party company solely with the exclusion of the Plaintiff, KimB, and thisCC on the grounds of the exclusion of the Plaintiff, KimB, and the Plaintiff has operated the F&C solely by the limited company

(C) Furthermore, on June 3, 1998, the procedure for the transfer of ownership under the instant agreement was not implemented since the Plaintiff and thisCC, etc. expressed their opinions about the burden of taxes and public charges due to the reduction of the revenues and the project of the Plaintiff, etc., and notified the Plaintiff and thisCC of its intent to terminate the instant agreement.

(3) The Plaintiff’s non-party company’s claim to appoint a light inspector who is permitted to convene a general meeting of members

The plaintiff asserted against the non-party company that he/she is a member of the non-party company, and requested the appointment of an inspector to investigate the business and property status of the previous three years, including the permission to convene a general meeting of members of the non-party company, the purpose of which is to dismiss the representative director A, etc. and the decision to appoint a successor ( Changwon District Court 98Ma1017). Since the above court already implemented the main part of the agreement of this case, the plaintiff's expression of intent to terminate the agreement of this case is invalid, and pursuant to the agreement of this case, the plaintiff decided to dismiss the plaintiff's application

(4) Action filed against the plaintiff et al. to confirm the membership rights of the appropriate AA.

(A) On the other hand, on March 29, 2002, AA brought a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on March 29, 2002 against the Plaintiff, ECC, and KimB’s inheritors KimGGG, etc. seeking confirmation that the Plaintiff has the right to share in the non-party company on the ground that he/she had been transferred the shares in the non-party company by the Plaintiff, KimB, thisCC, etc. (the Changwon District Court 200

(B) On May 29, 2003, the above court during the above lawsuit, when the non-party company attended as a conciliation intervenor, the main mediation was concluded that "the plaintiff transferred 8,183 shares in the non-party company (representative A), thisCC, KimGG, etc., to the non-party company, and the non-party company completed the registration of transfer of ownership of the real estate of this case to the plaintiff, KimGG, etc. on May 19, 2003, with respect to the real estate of this case, the transfer agreement was made on May 19, 2003 with respect to the land, etc. of this case to the plaintiff, Kim GG, and the non-party company completed the transfer of ownership of this case to the plaintiff on May 19, 2003, and the plaintiff paid 50 million won, Kim GG, and Lee Jae jointly and severally to the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "the instant mediation"), and accordingly, the registration of transfer of ownership of the real estate

(5) The Plaintiff’s management of equity shares after the instant conciliation

Even if the instant real estate was transferred to the Plaintiff after the instant conciliation, and even if the instant disposition was issued, the Plaintiff’s share of 8,183 shares on the account books of the Nonparty Company remains in the name of the Plaintiff, and the procedure for the retirement of shares was not taken or transferred to another person.

C. Determination

(1) Article 17(1)3 and 17(2)3 of the Income Tax Act provides that “The value of money or other property acquired by a shareholder due to the retirement of stocks or reduction of capital, or by an employee or investor due to retirement, withdrawal, or reduction of investment, shall be deemed to have been distributed to the relevant shareholder, employee, or investor, and the value of the money or other property acquired by the relevant employee or investor, which is subject to global income tax, by deeming that the amount in excess of the amount required for the shareholder, employee, or investor to acquire the relevant stocks or investment is deemed to have been distributed to the relevant shareholder, employee, or other investor.” The purpose of this provision is to impose income tax on the actual economic profit that a shareholder, etc.

(2) The above provisions and purport are as follows: ① Members of the non-party company (such as the Plaintiff and Jung-A) who were aware of the above facts through the oral argument of the case; (i) continue to engage in the non-party company's business taxi transportation business by taking advantage of the right to permit ○○ Maintenance; and (ii) the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the non-party company to have the property of the non-party company divided in proportion to their respective shares; (iii) the purpose of this case's agreement was to acquire the shares of the non-party company at the time of this case's agreement or to obtain the shares of the non-party company's capital reduction; and (iv) the transfer of the non-party company's shares to the non-party company by taking advantage of the above facts and circumstance that the non-party company did not have acquired shares of the non-party company's own share at the time of this case's agreement and the transfer of shares of the non-party company to the non-party company by taking advantage of the substance and substance of this case's agreement.

(3) Therefore, the instant disposition, which deemed otherwise constituted the Plaintiff’s transfer of equity shares and the acquisition of the instant real estate constructive dividend, should be revoked on the ground that it is unlawful without considering the remainder of the Plaintiff’s remaining arguments.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition by admitting it.