beta
Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit
Seoul Administrative Court 201Guhap42925 (22 June 2012)
Case Number of the previous trial
early 2011west 2990 ( December 06, 2011)
Title
The gift tax is illegal because the third party considers the source of share payment as the source of share payment and the gift tax is judged as the share owner.
Summary
(1) It is reasonable to deem that a third party, not the plaintiff, is the actual owner of the outstanding shares, although a share subscription was made under the name of the plaintiff, but the amount paid by the plaintiff is limited to part of the amount paid by the plaintiff, considering the source of share payment.
Cases
2012Nu22586. Partial revocation of the imposition of gift tax
Plaintiff, Appellant
Park AA
Defendant, appellant and appellant
Head of Seocho Tax Office
Judgment of the first instance court
Seoul Administrative Court Decision 201Guhap42925 decided June 22, 2012
Conclusion of Pleadings
April 24, 2013
Imposition of Judgment
May 22, 2013
Text
1. All appeals filed by the Defendant are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1. Purport of claim
The Defendant’s disposition of imposing gift tax on the Plaintiff on May 2, 201 shall be revoked in entirety, as indicated in the list of imposition disposition No. 1 attached hereto.
2. Purport of appeal
The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.
Reasons
The reasoning of this court's judgment is as follows: Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act are cited by the Defendant. The Defendant asserts that the instant shares cannot be deemed to have been trusted to the Plaintiff even in this court. However, considering the circumstances indicated in the first instance court, the evidence No. 9-12, the witness testimony of this court, and the facts that the instant shares are the shares trusted to the Plaintiff under the name of the Plaintiff upon the recommendation of RedOO, a director of the OOOOOOO protocol, a stock company or a person who was aware of the fact that the instant shares were the shares trusted to the Plaintiff. This part of the Defendant's assertion is groundless. The Defendant's appeal is dismissed. The Defendant's appeal is dismissed.