Busan District Court-2016-Gu 1357 (Law No. 29, 2016)

Where the transfer transaction of unlisted stocks is for the purpose of the corporation's treasury stock retirement, it shall be deemed the refund of capital, not the asset transaction, subject to global income tax.

In order to determine whether the sale of stocks is an asset transaction or a stock transfer, or whether the stock retirement or the capital refund is a capital transaction, the entire process of the transaction should be grasped and determined by the parties' intentions and the conclusion of the contract, the method of determining the price, and the progress

Article 17 of the Income Tax Act

Article 94 of the Income Tax Act: Scope of Transfer Income

2016Nu23202 global income and revocation of disposition

KimA

The Director of the Z Tax Office

Busan District Court Decision 2016Guhap1357 Decided September 29, 2016

April 12, 2017

May 10, 2017

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 capital gains tax of KRW 156,342,780 against the Plaintiff on October 6, 2015 by the Defendant shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reason why this Court is to use for this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

It shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Transmission Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[The first instance court, taking into account the circumstances in its reasoning, the Plaintiff’s shares of this case AA

The Plaintiff’s claim was dismissed based on the judgment of the court of first instance, which determined that the Plaintiff’s net profit gained by the Plaintiff constitutes a constructive dividend under Article 17(1)3 and Article 17(2)1 of the Income Tax Act, rather than simply transferring stocks as a transaction of profit and loss or an asset transaction, and is made as a part of the capital reduction procedure by means of stock retirement, and thus, constitutes a capital refund to the Plaintiff, which is the shareholder. The Plaintiff’s claim was dismissed. The Plaintiff repeats the same assertion in the court of first instance in the court of first instance in principle. In light of the allegations and reasons that the Plaintiff partly supplemented and examined, even if the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff is considered to have been partially supplemented

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just as it is concluded, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.