Appropriateness of the assertion that the exchange transaction of convertible bonds and shares was returned after simple lending

This disposition is legitimate by ascertaining the factual relations, such as the conclusion of a stock transfer contract to exchange stocks with the holders of convertible bonds and the fact that there is a clear relationship of stock transfer, such as litigation, etc.

Article 14 (Real Taxation under Framework Act on National Taxes)

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

The imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 55,001,483 on July 15, 2004 against the Plaintiff 14,977,560, capital gains tax of KRW 14,977,560 against the Plaintiff 1's 2001 against the Plaintiff 1's 2001, capital gains tax of KRW 49,237,170 against the Plaintiff 1's 2001 against the Defendant 1's 15, 2004 against the Plaintiff 1's 2004, respectively, is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. A. On April 20, 200, the non-party ○○○ Ltd., a corporation listed on KOSDAQ (hereinafter the non-party hereinafter the “non-party company”), issued four copies of convertible bonds, one billion won, and the ○○ Rescue Fund transferred one of them to the non-party ○○ and the Masung.

B. (1) On June 7, 2001, Plaintiff Clinical○ agreed to transfer 500,000 shares of Nonparty Company owned by Plaintiff Clinical○ in the purchase price of 1.1 billion won, but evaluate one of the convertible bonds with 1 billion won against Nonparty Company owned by Plaintiff Clinical○ as 1.1 billion won and receive a substitute for the purchase price. Plaintiff Clinical○ agreed on June 8, 2001, he transferred 320,000 shares to Sungsung○ and received one convertible bond.

While Plaintiff clinical○ did not transfer the remainder of 180,000 shares of Nonparty 1, it was concluded that Defendant Clinical○ filed a lawsuit against Defendant Clinical○○ seeking delivery of Nonparty 180,000 shares of Nonparty 1 by Sungwon District Court Branch 2003Kahap3061, March 19, 2004.

(2) On June 21, 2001, Plaintiff 1 and clinical ○○ transferred 500,000 shares of the non-party company owned by Plaintiff 1 and clinical ○○, to KRW 1100,000,000,000,000,000 to KRW 11100,000,000, and the non-party company owned by the new ○○, agreed to transfer 30,000 shares (70,000 shares of Plaintiff 1 and 230,000 shares) to the new ○ on the same day, and received one copy of convertible bonds. Plaintiff 1 did not transfer the remaining 200,00 shares and the clinical ○ did not request the transfer thereof.

(3) The plaintiffs promptly delivered two copies of convertible bonds issued to the non-party company, and then leased 2.2 billion won equivalent to the amount of convertible bonds to the non-party company, but on September 11, 2002, 620,000 won (70,000,000 won in advance of the plaintiff's appointment, 230,000 won in advance of the plaintiff's clinical, and 320,000 won in advance of the plaintiff's clinical, 320,000 won in advance of the returned shares (9.50,000 won in paper of September 11, 2002) was returned from the non-party company and exempted the remaining 1.61 billion won in debt.

C. The Plaintiff 154 million won (110 million won X 70,500,000 won) of the transfer value of the non-party company’s shares was calculated by calculating the transfer value of the non-party company’s shares as 230 million won (i.e., X 230,500,000 won) (i.e., the 11.1 billion won X 230,500,000 won), and the Plaintiff Clinical○ filed a transfer income tax return with the head of Sungnam District Tax Office by calculating the transfer value of 320,000 won of the 320,000 won (i.e., X 320,5000

D. (1) Defendant Hyeye Tax Office deemed that the Plaintiff’s 300,00 shares of Nonparty Company were transferred to 110 million won (256,620,00 won for the Plaintiff’s 70,000 shares, and KRW 843,180,000 for the Plaintiff’s 15,073,560 won for the Plaintiff’s 15,073,560 shares, and KRW 49,53,00 for the Plaintiff’s Clinical○ on October 21, 2005 for the Plaintiff’s Clinical○, 1,41,000 won for the necessary expenses, and 230,000 won for the Plaintiff’s Clinical○ on July 15, 2004, the Plaintiff’s Clinical○ and 300,000 won for each of 96,97,560 won for the reduction of capital gains tax for the Plaintiff’s Clinical○, and 4371,3719,37379,28

(2) On July 15, 2004, the head of Sungnam District Tax Office deemed that the Plaintiff’s clinical○ transferred 320,000 won to 1.1 billion won. On October 15, 2006, he deemed that the transfer income tax was corrected and notified 58,49,380 won for the Plaintiff’s clinical○ on July 15, 2004, and that the transfer value was 1,138,173,529 won for the Plaintiff’s clinical○ on October 10, 2006, and notified the rectification of the transfer income tax by additionally recognizing the transfer value of 6,050 won as necessary expenses. In other words, he corrected the transfer income tax by subtracting the transfer value of 23,850,000 won that should be paid upon a settlement made with Masung○,114,321,529 won for the transfer income tax to 2,618,567 won for the Plaintiff’s Clinical○○.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 4-12 evidence, Eul 1-18 evidence (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The non-party company’s shares were required in the process of recovering a copy of the 1 billion won convertible bonds issued by the non-party company from the owner of the 1 billion won convertible bonds from the ○○ and Masung, which are shareholders of the non-party company, and the plaintiffs, who are major shareholders of the non-party company, leased shares to the non-party company and received the same number of shares from the non-party company. Nevertheless, the disposition of this case which deemed that

B. Determination

In a case where one of the various types of effective judicial acts that can achieve a certain economic purpose, it cannot be denied without permission in the form of a judicial effective act, and the same applies to the act party. As seen earlier, the plaintiffs, who were major shareholders of the non-party company, again delivered convertible bonds received as payment for the transfer of shares of the non-party company to the non-party company, and received the same number of shares from the non-party company in relation thereto. However, it is clear that the plaintiffs concluded a share transfer contract with the holders of convertible bonds and received the same shares in relation thereto, and it is obvious that the plaintiffs were in the share transfer contract with the non-party company, such as entering into the share transfer contract with the non-party company and filing a lawsuit in relation thereto, and it is clear that the non-party company received shares from the non-party company and received the amount equivalent to 2.2 billion won in relation to the amount of convertible bonds when it was delivered with convertible bonds, and that the other non-party company's non-party company and the holders of the non-party company voluntarily filed a transfer income tax return.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed for lack of reason.