beta
Text
1. The director of the regional tax office’s regional tax office’s withholding tax for the year 2008 against the Plaintiff on January 16, 2012 and other income tax1,372,535.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff (the first trade name was changed to the trade name as of October 27, 2008) is a company that owns the Seoul and D land (hereinafter “instant land”) and the three underground floors above and ten floors above the ground (hereinafter “instant building”) and operates the real estate leasing business, etc.
E (F's father who is the representative director of the Plaintiff) held office as the representative director of the Plaintiff until October 12, 201, and 47,520 shares (79.2%) out of 60,000 shares issued by the Plaintiff as of October 12, 2008 were owned by E and remaining 12,480 shares (20.8%) by E.
B. 1) On May 2008, E was anticipated to impose a tax of approximately KRW 40 billion upon the donation of the instant building to his/her child, and H demanded to prepare a tax reduction scheme. H, along with I and J, donated the instant building to his/her child without paying a tax (hereinafter “oral franchise”).
E planned and proposed to E, and E accepted and implemented it, and the specific contents of the franchise are as follows:
In other words, in the Republic of Korea, when the gift tax base exceeds KRW 3 billion, approximately 50% tax shall be imposed on the excess portion, but Hong Kong shall not impose income tax or gift tax on stock transfer. In other words, the Plaintiff, by taking advantage of the fact that the Plaintiff obtained a loan of KRW 30 billion from the bank as security of the instant building from the bank, and made an investment in the Chinese Steel Company through Hong Kong located in Hong Kong. However, as if the Plaintiff incurred investment losses after several months, 4.5 billion out of the above funds is presumed to have been invested as liquidation amount, and the remaining amount is to be recovered as liquidation amount, by establishing a foreign corporation in Hong Kong, which is a Hong Kong, and then changed the Plaintiff into a foreign-capital invested company by obtaining more than 1/2 of the Plaintiff’s stocks through the corporation.