[상속세등부과처분취소][공1990.9.1.(879),1731]
The case holding that a disposition imposing inheritance tax is lawful in calculating the value of non-listed stocks that do not have actual practices in normal transactions according to the supplementary evaluation methods prescribed in Article 5 (2) through (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act.
According to Article 5(2) through (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act, the assessment of inherited property by the method provided for in Article 5(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act is an complementary method that can be selected only when it is difficult to calculate the market price at the time of commencing the inheritance or at the time of imposing the inheritance tax, and there was no need to select a supplementary assessment method because it is difficult to compute the market price. The so-called market price is interpreted as an objective exchange price formed through a normal transaction. The so-called market price is interpreted as the so-called "market price". Even if non-listed stocks not listed on the Stock Exchange are listed on the Stock Exchange, if there is a normal transaction example that properly reflects the above objective exchange value, the market price should be considered as the market price and the value of stocks should be assessed. However, even if the heir reported the market price as the inherited property and there was a transaction example claimed by the heir, if the transaction price is not formed by a transaction between many and unspecified persons, it is justifiable to measure the tax authority's report value calculated
Article 5 (2) through (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act
Supreme Court Decision 86Nu584 delivered on December 9, 1986 (Gong1987, 172) 88Nu3765 delivered on June 13, 1989 (Gong1989, 1082)
Kim Jong-ray et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant
Head of North Busan District Tax Office
Busan High Court Decision 88Gu1042 delivered on December 29, 1990
All appeals are dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.
1. We examine the first ground for appeal.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiffs' assertion that the non-party 165,00,000 won and the non-party 137,000,000 won were respectively borrowed from non-party 1,65,00,00 won from non-party 1, who is the deceased's decedent, and that the non-party 137,00,000,000 won were illegal. In light of the records, the court below's above determination is proper, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no error of law such as violation of the rules of evidence.
2. We examine the second ground for appeal.
The assessment of inherited property by the method stipulated in Article 5 (2) through (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act is a supplementary method that can be selected only when it is difficult to calculate the market price at the time of commencing the inheritance or at the time of imposing the inheritance tax, and the burden of proving that there was no need to select a supplementary assessment method because it is difficult to compute the market price exists. (See Supreme Court Decision 86Nu584 delivered on December 9, 1986) In this context, the so-called market price is interpreted to mean an objective exchange price formed by normal transactions, and even if the non-listed shares not listed on the Stock Exchange are not listed on the Stock Exchange, if there is a normal example of transactions that properly reflects the objective exchange value at the time of the commencement of the inheritance or the time of imposing the inheritance tax, the transaction price shall be deemed to be the market price and the value of shares shall be assessed (see Supreme Court Decision 88Nu37
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below did not believe that the plaintiffs' 4,527 shares of 1,00 shares of the company on July 30, 1986, transferred 1,000 shares of the company to the non-party Red Trademark, a non-listed corporation, as inherited property, and reported their values at the price assessed in accordance with the above supplementary evaluation methods. From April 20, 1985 to June 17, 1985, 45,850 shares of the above company were traded at 15,000 won per share over 21 times, and there was no circumstance that the management status of the above company becomes worse. Thus, the court below rejected the judgment of the court below that the non-party 1,00 shares of the above company were transferred to the non-party Red Trademark at KRW 7,00,000,000, and it cannot be viewed as a market price formed by transactions among many and unspecified persons. Thus, the defendant's assertion that the above appraisal method should not be justified in light of the legal principles.
In addition, the precedents of the party members of the theory are not consistent with the above legal principles. All the arguments are groundless.
3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)