Seocho 2014west 887 ( December 29, 2016)

It cannot be deemed that a foreign corporation’s stocks were transferred or the transfer price was attributed.

It is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff transferred foreign corporation’s shares or the transfer price was reverted to the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Article 94 (Scope of Transfer Income)

Article 16 of the Income Tax Act (Interest Income)

2017Guhap59895 Revocation of Disposition, etc. of Imposition of Transfer Income Tax

AA

○ Head of tax office

December 2, 2018

on October 02, 2018

1. The imposition of the global income tax on November 1 1 】 20 】 20 】 (20 ○○○○○○○○, 20 】 (20) 】 (20 】 (20) 】 (3) 】 (20) 】 (20) 】 (20) 】 (3) 】 (20) 】 (3) 】 (3) ○○○○

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

(a) the establishment, operation, etc. of AA, BB, and Lao CCC;

1) The Plaintiff established DoD and 19 x 19 x ○○○○○ in a year. At that time, the Plaintiff’s shareholder name of AAA was the relationship in which a foreigner or a corporation investing in a foreign corporation did not properly allocate the operating quota of fisheries to the corporation that made an investment in a foreigner or a foreign corporation. The Plaintiff transferred the name of AAAA’s shares to the ○○○○○○○, a Russ Corporation. around May 30, 1998, around May 30, 1998, the Plaintiff transferred the name of AA’s shares to the ○○○, a Russian national. The Plaintiff acquired the Russian nationality x 20 x March 11, 198, and transferred the shares of AAAA to the Plaintiff.

2) On March 23, 200, the Plaintiff established Dao BB, which is a fishery product transporter, at Russia ○○○○○ on March 23, 200. The Plaintiff and DD established Dao CCC, which is a fishery product trade company, at Russia △△△ on November 30, 190 x 20 x x 20 x x x 7.29 x x x 20 x x ○○ and △△△△△△ start operating activities by securing fishing vessels. The Plaintiff was mainly responsible for the management and operation of Dao AA, and the management and operation of Doo BB and Dao CCC, mainly due to lack of regular means of transportation.

(b) The fisheries quota system of Russia;

Operational activities in Russia are conducted according to the quota of fishery allocated to Russia government, 20 x 20 x 20 x x 10,00 metric Aa in a year, and 3,000 metric B in a year.

(c) Trades between the Plaintiff and EE (i.e., BB relationship)

1) Around June 11, 200, the Plaintiff decided to transfer to Russia fisheries quota BB (3,000 tons) of Russia fishery companies or Plaintiff’s self-employed BB shares to EE. EE transferred ○0,000 U.S. dollars to an account opened in the name of FF in the Hong Kong HSBC bank (the account for non-income of the Lao CCC).

2) The Plaintiff: (a) 20 x (20 x 20 x (20 x 20 x 31 x 8 x 20 x 20,000 U.S. dollars were transferred to the Plaintiff’s personal account.

3) The Plaintiff and EE made a sale and purchase contract of securities (stocks) x 20 x 9.6. The contract includes “the Plaintiff, quantity: 100 shares issued by the Plaintiff, and price: 00 U.S. dollars : 00,000 U.S. dollars paid by EE pursuant to paragraph (1) above (Evidence 1) (Evidence 7). The Plaintiff and EE prepares a sale and purchase contract of securities (stocks) x 20 x 9.7 x 9.7, and the contract states “the Plaintiff, quantity: 100 shares issued by the Plaintiff, and 0,00 U.S. dollars : 10 U.S. dollars : price.”

4) EE transferred 20 x 20 x. FF account on September 9, 2000 U.S. dollars to FF account.

D. Transactions between the Plaintiff and the GG (i.e., AA related to the GG)

1) On November of each year, the Plaintiff agreed to transfer all the projects, including the self-employed AAA’s fishing quota (10,000 tons) to GG in the Republic of Korea. The Plaintiff and GG agreed to transfer the total acquisition price of the Plaintiff 20 x.1.25 x. The Plaintiff and the GG confirmed that the total acquisition price was 00,00 U.S. dollars (the value of the quota is 00,000 U.S. dollars, the remaining assets (real estate, freezing facilities, etc.) are 0,000 U.S. dollars). However, the Plaintiff and the GG made a "basic agreement" (B evidence 1-2) to determine the stock price after calculating the specific price according to the due diligence conducted by the GG side. GG was prepared through an audit conducted by the local accounting company of Russia and the attorney-at-law on February 14 28, 200 x through an audit conducted by the 000 U.S. dollars.

2) GG transferred 20 x 20 x 20 x 60 x 6.23 x 4 U.S. dollars to Arano on June 23.

3) The Plaintiff and GG agreed on 20 x 20 x. 6.21 the final Lao AA’s total asset value in U.S. dollars ○○.

4) On June 23, 200, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with HH, a Russian nationality, to transfer all of the shares of HA to 00,000, and received the payment on the same day, and transferred shares to HH in the name of H on the following day.

(e) Transfer, etc. to the KJ III and the JJC

1) Of the money deposited into the FF account as described in paragraph (c)(4) above, the U.S. dollars 20 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 20 x x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 o AA’s account to the domestic third.

2) Of the money transferred from GG to GA, as described in the foregoing D. 2, the U.S. dollars 20 ○○○○ 20 x. 20 x. 10 x 20 x 3 x 17 x. 3 x 9 million U.S. dollars x 20 x 20 x 17 x 20 x 7 x 7. 4 July 4, 2007.

F. Disposition, etc. of this case

1) The Defendant: (a) deemed that all shares of AA and BB owned by the Plaintiff 100% shares (i.e., the Plaintiff transferred all shares of AAA and BB to the ○○○○○○○○ (i.e., the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○)); (b) 20 x November 1, 19 x 20 x (i.e., the Plaintiff 20 x (ii) the transfer income tax attributed to year x 20 x (iii) the transfer income tax attributed to year x ○○○○

2) As above, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff lent 00 U.S. dollars (total sum of the money stated in the above paragraph (e)) to III and J and imposed interest income on the interest payment date on the same day 】 (20 】 (20 ○○○○○, 20 】 global income tax for the year 】 】 global income tax for the year 】 ○○○○○○, and 20 】 global income tax for the year 】 (hereinafter the above 】 】 】 (20 】 year 】 imposition disposition of transfer income tax for the year 】 20 】 (20 】 year 】 20 】 (including all imposition disposition of global income

2. Relevant statutes;

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The defendant's taxation logic

The Plaintiff owned 100% of the shares of Lao BB and Lao AA as a domestic resident.

On June 6, 200, the Plaintiff: (a) transferred the shares of the Plaintiff BB to EE in U.S. dollars; (b) drafted a share sale and purchase contract (Evidence 2) with the Plaintiff; (c) according to the contract, the Plaintiff received 00 U.S. dollars from EE on September 9, 200 x 20 x FF account; and (d) received 00,000 U.S. dollars separately. The FF account is entirely operated by the Plaintiff’s instructions and management.

The Plaintiff and GGG made up of the “Basic Agreement” (Evidence No. 1-2) in January of each year x (20 x the transferor’s 20 x 20 x 20 x 6 x 3 x 0 x 0 x 3 x 0 x 0 x 0 x 6 x 6 x 0 x 0 x 0 x 0 x 20 x 20 x 20 x 20 x 20 x 1 x 6 x 3 x 0 x 20 x 20 x 20 x 6 x , and the amount was transferred to the JJ established by the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s birth as the largest shareholder of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff for the future Russ Project (concentrating.).

In full view of these circumstances, the Plaintiff transferred the shares of Jinio BB to ○○○○, AAA’s shares to ○○○○○○○, and the actual owner of the transfer proceeds is the Plaintiff, and the money transferred to III and JJ may be deemed to have been lent to III and JJ by the Plaintiff.

B. Facts of recognition

1) The Plaintiff, as described in paragraph (a) 1.9 x year 19 x year, 19 x year 20 x year x year, 20 x self-employed AA, i.e., fishery products shipping company, and misunderstanding CCC in fishery trade companies.

2) Russia 20 x 20 x from December of each year, a quota auction system was implemented for all fishery products in the Russia economic zone. x 20 x even though multiple Korean companies participated in the quota auction in the year x Russia failed to secure the private quota by preferentially allocating the quota to its fishermen (if the government excludes the quota granted to foreign fishing vessels secured through the Korea- Russ Fisheries Agreement, the private companies could not secure the quota). The government of Korea, jointly with Russia, established an overseas subsidiary to enable them to conduct fisheries (the government granted the benefits of customs reduction and exemption to the imported catch through the overseas subsidiary). Nevertheless, the Russia government did not want to take advantage of facilities, processing, etc., while it did not directly take out the fishing vessels from foreign enterprises, and it was not easy for Russia to take the operation of the Korean fisheries joint ventures within the economic zone.

3) ADB commenced operational activities after securing operational vessels from around 20 】 (20)

(E) 20 x (20 x 20 x x 10 x 10 x 1) purchase of a large fishing vessel in the world.

4) Voluntary AA and AE BB used funds and operating expenses necessary to allocate fishing quotas from the Oro CCC (i.e., a fisheries company, obtained quotas through quota auction at the time of establishment of AEB and AEB, so considerable expenses were incurred in securing quotas (i.e., approximately one ton U.S. dollars according to the Plaintiff’s assertion). Due to the characteristics of the fisheries company, vessel purchase cost (i.e., payment of approximately 00 U.S. dollars from the FF account) and personnel expenses were required. On the other hand, the Oro CCC secured fishery products from the fisheries company, sold them to various companies, such as the United States, Canada, and Korea, and obtained income or non-income from sub-transaction.

(A) According to the witness DD’s testimony, the Plaintiff used the FF account for the purpose of managing additional income (the Defendant asserts that the above account was actually the Plaintiff; however, when considering the direction of remittance (No. 38) of INVE sent to the exporting company, some other parts were required to transfer to the FF account, and witness DF’s income to the effect that DF account was forced by the tax authorities to liquidate (No. 34). Thus, the Plaintiff managed the obligation to the Oro CCC as non-performing debt. Meanwhile, Oro CCC used the FF account for the purpose of managing additional income (the Defendant asserts that the above account was actually the Plaintiff, but, some other parts were demanded to transfer to the FF account, and witness DF witness’s income to the effect that DF account was used for the purpose of managing the OF account, etc.).

5) The Russia introduced a method of allocating fisheries quotas based on the past operational performance from around 20 x year to the rise in quota prices due to the quota auction system.

20 x (20 x 20 x 10,00 metric tons x 20 x 10,000 metric BB, 3,000 metrics were allocated (the Russian government, because it was reduced in the number of quotas allocated, so i.e., AA and i., i.e., i., 200 metrics and i.e., 3,00 metrics and i., i.e., i., i., i., i., i., i., ii. i. i. i. ii. ii. i. i. ii. i. i. ii. i. i. i. ii. ii. i. ii. i. ii. i. ii) borrowed from the OF account to the accounts of DD and then used the expenses to be paid by DD in cash or in oil supply from the F account).

6) 20 】 20 】 (20 】 (1) 】 (20 】 20 】 20 】 ○○○○ (24 】 on the balance sheet of the year 】 20 】 (1) 】 20 】 (20 ○○○○) 】 (1) 】 (27) 】 (3) ○○○○○○ (20 ○○) 】 (3) 】 (27 ; witness DD stated that it was made in order to clarify each other’s shares in the same business relationship with the Plaintiff) the cumulative deficit of 20 】 (20 】 (20 ○○○, 20 】 24 】 20 】 20 ○○, 20 】 ○○0 】 ○○○) 】 (20 ○○) 】 (30 ○) 】 (200 ○) 】 (200 ○) Da) 2830.

7) Lao AA 20 】 (20) The loan accumulated from the year 】 FF

The details borrowed from the account and the details borrowed from the account (AA foreign currency loan, A. 16 evidence). 20 x 20 x 4 x 10 x x 20 x x 11 3 x 20 x 17 x 12 x 20 ○○, 20 x ○○, 20 x ○○, 20 x ○○, 20 x 20 x x 20 x 12 x 22 x 12 x 12 x 20 x ○ ○○ ○ ○○, Flux 20 x 5 x 5 x 20 x 20 x ○○ ○○, ○○ lub x x 13 x x x 20 x x ○ ○○ lub x x x x 20 x x x ○ x ○ ○ ○ , and ○ ○ x x , and 2 x ○..

8) The plaintiff 20 x 20 x 10 x 20 x 20 x 20 x 20 x 20 x 1 c) around June through September of each year. The plaintiff made the same transaction as described in 20 x 20 x 11 d. on January of each year. The plaintiff entered into a basic agreement with the plaintiff on January 25, 200, and entered into a contract for the acquisition of the fishery company of Russia on the same day with the Exchange, and the details are 0 ○ ,00 ,00 ,00 ,000 ,00 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,00 ,000 ,00 ,00 ,00 ,00 ,00 ,00 .

9) On the other hand, domestic distant water fisheries operators attempted various ways to secure the quota of Russian fisheries. ① Method of accepting the company’s name by accepting the shares of quota holders, ② Method of leasing a ship to a quota holder through a charter party and receiving charterage catches, ③ Method of securing a claim by paying advance payment and a loan to a quota holder and offsetting it with catches, etc.

10) On June 21, 200, the Plaintiff paid the transfer income tax to the Russian tax authorities on the transfer of shares held by Russian BB, 20 x 20 x 5 x 0 ○○lub to the Russian tax authorities on the transfer of shares held by Russian AA.

11) As described in paragraph (e) 1.C. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L filed a report on foreign currency loan of borrowing ○○○○○○○○○○○ from A.O.A. in Korea on September of the year 】 20 x 20 x 20 x x 20 x x 30 x 14 March 14. J reported foreign currency loan borrowing ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ from A.O.C. in Korea on July 4, 200.

C. Determination

1) For the instant disposition to be lawful, the Plaintiff’s shares in J. BB x 20 x 30 % shares between the Plaintiff and EE, respectively, should be premised on the fact that the transfer price belongs to the Plaintiff (based on the premise that the portion of global income tax also belongs to the Plaintiff). According to the facts acknowledged earlier and evidence Nos. 2, 1, 3, 1, and 100% shares of J. BB x 20 x 20 x 20 x 20 x 3, and 100 shares of J. A. 1, 205, the Plaintiff established a livestock business agreement between the Plaintiff and GG x 1,200 x 10% shares of the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff established a livestock business agreement between the Plaintiff and GG x 1,205 x the Plaintiff’s shares in the domestic market.

2) However, in full view of the facts and circumstances described above (b) and the evidence stated in Gap 7, 8, 40, and 41, as well as the witness DD, KK, and LL’s testimony and the overall purport of the pleadings, it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff transferred the plaintiff’s own BB shares to "4,500,000,000,000, or that the plaintiff transferred the plaintiff’s own shares of "AAA" to GG or paid to GGA," and there is no other evidence to recognize otherwise. The instant disposition should be revoked.

[Voluntary BB-related]

1) Fishing activities in Russia are conducted according to the quota allocated to B0, and thus has the value of an intangible asset. A fisheries company shall not be exempt from fiscal deterioration if the essential cost (such as cost of purchasing and maintaining ships, wages of seafarers) is allocated so much to the extent that such cost can be offset (DD stated that it has no choice but to operate a quota with others in order to maintain and continue operations when it is allocated a quantity of quotas). BB made a statement that the Plaintiff had a lot of debt until the trade with EE and that the value of the Plaintiff’s 20 years ago x 300,000 x 20 years x 30 years x 200 x 30,000 x 30,000 x 30,000 x 30,000 x 10,000 x 30,000) was already purchased on the basis of the terms and conditions of the agreement between the Plaintiff and the 300,000.

2) In the above 1.c. transaction, only US dollars 00 was remitted to the Plaintiff’s personal account, and the remaining ○○○○○ was remitted to the FF account. However, as seen earlier, FF account is an account used as an out-of-the-counter account of the Lao CCC. Moreover, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the said money was remitted to the Plaintiff’s individual or that the Plaintiff used the said money (in this regard, witness DD testified that “if the money of the FF account was not less than the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff was deducted even if 1 won was deducted, it would have come to the end of the said business relationship). As seen earlier, i.e., i., BB bears a large amount of debt in the Lao CCC, and thus, it is reasonable to deem that the money remitted to the FF account as alleged by the Plaintiff was remitted to the Lao BB for the repayment of its debt to the Lao CCC.

3) The Plaintiff reported and paid the transfer income tax to the Russia tax authority on the U.S. dollars ○○○○○, which was remitted to the personal account. The ○○ regional tax office, “The Plaintiff sold YB to EE by selling ○○○○○, and received the price to the FF account, but subsequently, prepared a false double contract and evaded the transfer income tax as if sold to ○○○,” and the Plaintiff’s accusation was issued on June 26, 200 x 20 x 20 x 20 x 20 x 11 28.1.28.

[Voluntary AA-related]

1) Witness KK ( currently in office as a director of GG and 1. D) concluded a monetary lending contract and paid the catch price for the sale of the catch as advance payment. The Plaintiff’s purchase of the Plaintiff’s self-employed AA shares is not GG but HH. GG made a statement that “GG has not been involved in holding or operating the Plaintiff’s shares, and ○○○○○○ (00 U.S. dollars) remitted to GA was repaid for catch.” In addition, considering the following circumstances, GG is “the content publicly announced in the Exchange as of the date the basic agreement was written” and “the scheduled investment will be made in advance and in the form of loan.” Moreover, as alleged by the Plaintiff, GGG made and made a basic agreement with the Plaintiff and its basic U.S. dollars in order to secure catches by paying advance payments and loans to the quota holders and offsetting the catch and its claim.”

2) According to the facts described in the above b. 7, AAA may be deemed to have been in a state of capital erosion from 20 x (i.e., forced liquidation system for Russia x 20 x (i.e., it may be predicted that the financial status was no longer higher than the balance sheet). Considering that Russia’s 20 x (i.e., stock value in a year x 0 ○○○○○) was not deemed to have reached its value for the fishing quota held by Aussia rather than that it is deemed to have reached its 00 U.S. dollars. While the acquisition price was written in the basic agreement (Evidence No. 10) but the acquisition price was written in 0 U.S. dollars, the acquisition price was not considered in consideration of all corporate assets including the Plaintiff’s share 100% and the fishery quota shares 100% x from the date of compulsory liquidation system for Russia’s nationality, the Plaintiff concluded an additional transfer of the entire shares to HO in its name.

3) As described in the above b.7) as above, Lao AA has borrowed money from Lao CFC (FF account) since its establishment. The Lao CCC, while managing non-performing income out of the fishery products received from III, lent the expenses of Lao AA by means of lending it to, or directly transferring it to, the FF account. The audit report (Evidence A12, 25) made by the GGA with respect to, its own AEA (Evidence 12, 25) states that it bears the obligation of ○○ ○○ (U.S.). Comprehensively taking into account these circumstances, it can be recognized that it was reasonable for Lao AA to assume that it was a party to whom it was transferred or lent money to, the Plaintiff’s actual repayment of the money to, or the Plaintiff’s repayment of the money to, Lao AEM as otherwise alleged by the Defendant, as described in the c. e., the Plaintiff’s assertion that it was a party to the Plaintiff’s obligation to, and the Plaintiff’s actual repayment of money to, the JAJ account.

4) The Plaintiff reported to the RH and paid the transfer income tax after reporting to the Russian tax authorities on the ○○ Manbable which received by transferring the shares to HH. The Plaintiff received 100% of the shares of HA from the GG from the GG to the ○○○○○○○, and then received the said shares from the GG’s account after having transferred the shares of 100% to the GG, but he received the said shares to the III account, the Plaintiff evaded the transfer income tax by fraudulent or other unlawful means, such as undermining the transfer income tax or undermining AAA’s loan obligations to the III, as if the Russ were to reduce the transfer income tax, or to conceal the loan obligations to the H.,” In the case where the Plaintiff files an accusation, 20 x 26 x June 26, 200 x 20 x 20 x 11 28.11.

4. Conclusion

It is so decided as per Disposition, as the claim of this case is with merit.