증여세부과처분취소
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the column of reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition of some of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in paragraph (2). Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
2. Parts which are dismissed or added in the judgment of the first instance; and
(a) in the 4th page, the 3rd column “H” is charged to “O”, and the 8th page “Defendant” is charged to “Defendant”;
(b)in Chapter 7, the following shall be added to:
On the other hand, the legislative purport of Article 35(2) of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act is to cope with an irregular gift act and to promote the fairness of taxation by imposing gift tax on the profits acquired by the other party to the transaction in a case where the profit equivalent to the difference between the price and the market price is actually gratuitously transferred by abnormal methods that manipulate the transaction price for the benefit of the other party
However, since the transaction between unrelated parties does not coincide with each other, it is generally difficult to deem that the difference was donated to the other party to the transaction solely on the ground that there is a difference between the price and the market price, and thus, Article 35(2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that the transaction between unrelated parties, unlike the transaction between unrelated parties, shall not have justifiable grounds for the transaction
The case is added.
In full view of these facts, there were reasonable grounds to believe that the parties to the transaction who transferred or acquired the property at a low price had properly reflected the transaction value at a normal price, and there were no such grounds, and there were no objective grounds to deem that the transferor transferred the property at a reasonable price from a reasonable economic standpoint.