Seoul Administrative Court 201Guhap7205 ( October 06, 2011)

Cho High Court Decision 2010Du2052 ( December 01, 2010)

It does not contravene the principle of double taxation prohibition to impose capital gains tax and gift tax when a low price is transferred between related parties.

(As in the first instance judgment, the transfer income tax is imposed on the transferor by applying the provision of wrongful calculation at the time of transfer of the property between the related parties, and the gift tax is imposed on the transferee under the legal fiction of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, which results in duplicate taxation on the source of the same taxable capacity, but it does not violate the principle of prohibition of double taxation.

Article 101 of the Income Tax Act

Article 35 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

2011Nu38294 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax, etc.

Kim XX et al.

Head of the Cheongju Tax Office and one other

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2011Guhap7205 decided October 6, 2011

March 21, 2012

April 18, 2012

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

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

The decision of the first instance court is revoked. The imposition of KRW 000 (including additional tax) for the transfer income tax of 2007 on March 3, 2010 by the head of the Cheongju Tax Office against the Plaintiff KimA on the part of March 3, 2010 shall be revoked. The imposition of KRW 00 (including additional tax) for the gift tax on March 3, 2010 by the head of the Cheongju Tax Office against the Plaintiff KimB and the imposition of KRW 000 (including additional tax) for the gift tax against the Plaintiff KimCC (the Plaintiff clearly stated in this court that the Plaintiff’s claim of the Plaintiff KimB, and the claim of the Plaintiff KimB, KimCC are not the primary and preliminary consolidation but the simple consolidation

1. cite the judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as follows, and thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Pursuant to the decision of the first instance court 2, the plaintiff KimA added "the representative director" in front of " XX", "147,000 man who is the second highest," and read "147,400 won" as "147,400 won which is the fourth and fourth below."

O The 10th 10th 10th 10, the 7th 10th 7th , and the 8th th 8th , the 3th 3th 3th 3th , the 3th 4th 10

2. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.