[증여세부과처분취소][공1986.3.1.(771),399]
The case holding that the transfer of property constitutes a case where the property is transferred as consideration for the value significantly low value as provided in Article 34-2 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3474 of Dec. 31, 1981).
If a director in charge of affairs of a company transfers the company's shares of 22,045 won per share to the representative director of the same company who has worked at the same workplace for four years, this constitutes a price of not more than 70 percent as provided in Article 41 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10667 of Dec. 31, 1981) and the transfer of the above shares is a price of not more than 70 percent as provided in Article 34-2 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3474 of Dec. 31, 1981).
Article 34-2 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3474 of Dec. 31, 1981)
[Judgment of the court below]
Head of the Do Tax Office
Seoul High Court Decision 84Gu178 delivered on September 16, 1985
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since June 1, 1976, the plaintiff and the non-party are merely members of the board of directors of the non-party 3 truck business corporation, who had worked at the same workplace, and were in charge of the non-party 6,000 shares of the above company at September 15, 1980, transferred 15,000 won per share to the plaintiff who is the representative director of the same company. Thus, the plaintiff and the non-party constitute a person with a special relationship because it is objectively obvious that they have a relationship with the same workplace. Further, the plaintiff's disposal of the shares at the time of the above transfer constitutes a case where it is difficult to calculate the market price at the time of the above transfer and the plaintiff's proof as to the market price at the time of the above transfer, and the value of shares at the time of the above 40 percent shares at the time of the transfer of the above shares at the time of the above 10 percent of the acquisition price at the time of the above 40 percent shares.
Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in comparison with the records, the above fact-finding by the court below is justified, and there is no error of law in the incomplete deliberation or misconception of facts due to a violation of the rules of evidence, such as the litigation, and the judgment of the court below is just and there is no ground for misunderstanding of legal principles as to the evaluation of the value of non-listed stocks such as the theory
Therefore, the appeal is 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 Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)