Daegu District Court 2013Guhap10375 (Law No. 16, 2013)

It is reasonable to view that the change of holders of shares was made by agreement or communication with the actual owner.

In light of the fact that there is no objection or criminal complaint that he/she has been aware that he/she is a shareholder on the register of shareholders, it is reasonable to view that he/she has made a change of ownership of shares by entering into an agreement or communication with the actual owner, and it does not seem that there was any other purpose than tax avoidance.

2013Nu10275 Revocation of the imposition of gift tax

CHAPTER A

Racing Head of the Tax Office

Daegu District Court Decision 2013Guhap10375 Decided August 16, 2013

December 13, 2013

January 10, 2014

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The imposition of the gift tax OOO on August 14, 2012 by the defendant against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows: (a) there is no filing of a criminal complaint under Section 16 of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) there is no filing of a criminal complaint under Section 6, 8, and 10 of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (c) the ground for the judgment of the court of first instance is identical with the ground for the judgment of the court of first instance except for the accusation under Section 6, 8, and 10 of the judgment of the court of first instance under Section 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and

2. The addition;

•The Plaintiff asserts that the shares 161,400 shares of the Plaintiff’s 233,400 shares owned by the largestB family are 161,40 shares, and the Plaintiff purchased 33,030 shares of 72,00 shares out of 72,00 shares, excluding the shares purchased by the newCC, and that the shares purchased by the Plaintiff and the shares purchased by the Plaintiff are different from the shares purchased by the newCC. However, the newCC asserts that the shares purchased in the name of ParkD except 72,00 shares owned by the largest E, 161,40 shares (132,00 +24,00 shares + 5,40 shares + 400 shares owned by the largest E, excluding 72,00 shares owned by the largest E, excluding 72,00 shares held by the shares purchased by the Plaintiff. As the shares asserted by the Plaintiff are shares owned by the largestB, F, and KimG (Evidence).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.