(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.06.20 2018구합1887

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.06.20 2018구합1887

증여세부과처분취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant corporation”) is a corporation with the purpose of drug wholesale business, etc.

B. Around May 24, 2012, shares 9,000 shares in the name of the instant corporation (hereinafter “instant shares”) were transferred to the Plaintiff.

C. From May 29, 2017 to June 27, 2017, the head of the Gangwon-do Tax Office conducted an investigation of stock change with respect to the instant corporation, and notified the Defendant of taxation data to the effect that the actual owner of the instant shares was in title trust after the title trust of the instant shares to D, his mother, and thus, again deemed that the instant shares were held in title trust to the Plaintiff.

Accordingly, on August 21, 2017, the Defendant decided and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 273,735,370 (including penalty tax on no return) of gift tax (including KRW 56,344,440) on May 24, 2012, and notified the Plaintiff of the designation of a joint taxpayer E.

On September 26, 2018, the Plaintiff appealed to the Tax Tribunal, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on July 20, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, and where there are evidence Nos. 1 through 10, it shall be included below

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. A summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Determination of the tax base and tax amount of gift tax alleged in violation of jurisdiction and lack of disposition of imposition shall be made by the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the place of the donee’s domicile. The investigation by the head of the Gangseo-dong Tax Office, which is not the Defendant, violates his jurisdiction, and the Defendant determined gift tax on the Plaintiff and notified the collection disposition thereof only. As such, the instant disposition constitutes a violation of jurisdiction or a disposition of collection lacking of disposition of imposition. (2) The Plaintiff was the actual owner of the instant shares acquired from D, and due process

참조조문

-상속세 및 증여세법 제45조의2

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2019. 10. 10. 선고 2019구합134 판결

-수원지방법원 2019. 06. 20. 선고 2018구합1887 판결

-대전고등법원 2020.05.14 2019누12935

-서울행정법원 2018.11.30 2017구합54142

-서울동부지방법원 2018.01.18 2016가단141135