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

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the corresponding part of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, since Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act shall apply to the application of Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Article 54(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that the value of unlisted stocks shall be appraised as net profit or loss per share (i.e., the average of net profit or loss per share ± (i.e., the interest rate determined and publicly notified by the Minister of Strategy and Finance in consideration of the rate of circulation of corporate bonds with maturity of three years ± three years maturity per share) and net asset value per share (i.e., the net asset value of the relevant corporation ± total number of issued and outstanding stocks). The net profit or loss per share of the relevant corporation shall be appraised as net profit or loss or net asset value of the relevant corporation as of the base date of appraisal. However, as at the base date of appraisal, the sales of the relevant apartment before the cancellation of the sale contract, was reflected in the calculation of income amount before the cancellation of the sale contract, but the effect of the cancellation after the sale contract becomes invalid retroactively as of the base date of appraisal before the conclusion of the contract, and thus, the previous apartment sale of the relevant corporation shall be retroactively cancelled from the net asset value or net asset value before the cancellation (i.).

2) On April 2009, AA development applied for the correction of corporate tax for each business year from 2003 to 2005, reflecting the fact that the sales contract of the apartment of this case was cancelled on a large scale, and the competent tax office paid a refund after deducting and correcting corporate tax and value-added tax by retroactively reflecting the sales contract of this case. However, after the audit by the National Tax Service, the tax office has modified the above view and re-rupture the value of the stocks of this case according to the sales contract before the cancellation of corporate income. This is contrary to the principle of trust protection.

3) The Defendant’s stock value per share of the instant shares to the Plaintiff in 2013 is KRW 130,058.

Although gift tax was notified of correction of KRW 135,30,890 on the basis of the evaluation, the plaintiff was not allowed to pay in kind by evaluating the value of shares per share of AA development differently from the evaluation of the above defects. This is against the principle of equity.

4) Even if the disposition of this case is lawful, the disposition of this case’s principal gift tax imposition is deemed lawful.

The penalty tax shall not be imposed on the ground that the gift tax is not properly reported due to the doubt in the interpretation of the relevant statutes, and that there is a justifiable reason that is not attributable to the failure to prove the failure to perform the duty. Therefore, the penalty tax portion among the disposition of this case at least should be revoked by illegality.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form "Related Acts and subordinate statutes" shall be as stated.

C. Determination

1) In accordance with the retroactive effect of the cancellation of the sales contract, the sales reduction is reflected as of the donation date.

As to the assertion that the market price of the stock in this case should be assessed by calculating the corporation’s income

A) The key issue of this part of the assertion

Gift tax with respect to the donation of shares of this case to the plaintiff on December 15, 2006

In order to determine the tax base, the market price of the stock of the non-listed corporation should be determined. The market price of the stock of the stock of the non-listed corporation should be determined by the supplementary assessment method, and the market price of the stock will be determined based on the net value of profit and loss and net asset value derived from the sales of the corporation in case of the supplementary assessment method.

After all, the market price of the shares is affected by the income amount of the corporation in this case.

In the case of the above donation, the sales contract of the apartment of this case under the plaintiff's business was calculated as sales, but the sales contract of this case occurred as of the time of the disposition of this case thereafter, and if the retroactive effect of cancellation of the contract is recognized, the change in the income amount due to the decrease in sales as of the date of the donation occurs due to the relationship with the termination of the contract retroactively from the date of the above donation.

Therefore, the key issue of this case is whether the amount of income of the corporation should be calculated based on the sales amount before the contract was cancelled as of the date of the above donation, or whether the amount of income of the corporation should be calculated based on the sales amount reduced as of the date of subsequent cancellation of sales contract based on the retroactive effect following the cancellation of sales contract. Accordingly, the market price of the stocks of this case varies accordingly, and thus, the tax base of gift tax against the

B) Recognition of the grounds for subsequent request for rectification related to corporate tax

Article 40 (1) of the Corporate Tax Act provides that "the business year to which the domestic corporation's gross income and deductible expenses accrue for each business year"

The Do shall be the business year which includes the date on which the gross income and deductible expenses are determined. When the right that is the cause of the income has not been determined even if there is no income, it shall be deemed as realizing the income, and the so-called principle of confirmation of right that calculates taxable income has been adopted. This means that if there is time interval between the time when the right that is the cause of income is determined and the time when the right is realized, it shall not be the time when the income is realized, but the income is determined at the time when the right is determined and the income is actually realized at the time when the right is determined and the income is calculated in substance on the premise that it will be realized in the future. Therefore, even if the right that is the cause of income has become final and conclusive and the tax liability is determined to be not realized due to the occurrence of a certain subsequent cause, if the tax liability established at first becomes final and conclusive, it shall be deemed that the tax liability cannot be levied in principle as a result of the loss of the premise (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Du12

Therefore, in principle, corporate tax shall be deemed as the grounds for filing a subsequent claim for correction in principle for the exercise of the right to rescind or the rescission of a contract due to unavoidable reasons under Article 25-2 subparag. 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22038, Feb. 18, 2010; hereinafter the same). However, in special circumstances where the Corporate Tax Act or relevant provisions stipulate the amount of income not realized due to the cancellation of a contract, as the grounds for deducting the amount of income in the business year to which the date of cancellation belongs, or where the taxpayer has reported corporate tax in a manner that deducts the amount of income in the business year to which the date of cancellation belongs in accordance with corporate accounting standards or practices, such cancellation of a contract may not affect the original tax liability to which the date of cancellation belongs, and thus the grounds for filing a subsequent claim for correction cannot be deemed as the grounds for filing a subsequent claim for correction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 20

C) Supplementary evaluation methods and timing for evaluation of the market price of non-listed stocks related to gift tax

Article 60 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

Article 54 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "the value of non-listed stocks shall be based on the market price as of the date of commencing an inheritance or the date of donation (hereinafter referred to as the "date of appraisal"), and Article 54 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "the value of non-listed stocks shall be based on the weighted average value of net profit and loss per share (hereinafter referred to as "net profit and loss value") assessed by the following formula (the value per share ± the weighted average amount of net profit and loss for the last three years per share ± the rate determined and publicly notified by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service in consideration of the rate of profit and loss on distribution of three-year corporate bonds guaranteed by the financial institutions) and net asset value per share, respectively, and Article 55 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "the net asset value under Article 54 (2) of the same Act shall be calculated by subtracting the value appraised by the assets of the relevant corporation as of the date of appraisal on the date of appraisal, respectively, from the net asset value per share shall be calculated by the date of inheritance:

D) Circumstances on which the determination is based

The facts and the results of the prior recognition, the provisions and legal principles of the relevant statutes, and the entire pleadings;

In order to gather the purport, the following circumstances are revealed.

(1) Article 56(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that the net profit and loss value of the unlisted stocks

It should be calculated based on the weighted average value of profits and losses for the three years prior to the day. The method of assessing the value of stocks by using the corporation's profits may be based on the future interest and the past interest. However, in case of assessing the value of stocks based on future interest, there is a lot of room for involvement of the person in charge of appraising in the evaluation based on future interest, our law adopted the method based on past

B. The market value presented in the previous Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is not the actual value of the property concerned, but the actual value thereof.

The market value on the base date is the transaction value that can be seen as being formed when the transaction was made on the base date of appraisal, and the information that can be reflected in the formation of the market value on the base date of appraisal is the information existing on the base date of appraisal, and thus the net value of the immediately preceding three years may be reflected, but the net value of the information that does not exist as of the base date of appraisal, i.e., the net value of the

Consolidatedly, the Plaintiff asserts that there was no sale retroactively since the contract concluded in the year 2003 to 2005 was rescinded through the instant business around March 2008 and July 2008. However, the cancellation of the said sales contract occurred after the Plaintiff acquired the instant shares, so the details of cancellation cannot be reflected in the assessment of the instant shares.

The shares of this case were applied to the market price as non-listed shares. The supplementary evaluation method is not only the norm of conduct prescribed by the law, but also the norm of trial to enforce and take effect such acts. In other words, the supplementary evaluation method has the meaning as a norm of trial to force and take effect such acts. In other words, the supplementary evaluation method can be assessed only when it comes to fall under the category of "when it is difficult to compute the market price of the property subject to evaluation" because the contents of the method are detailed in the area where interests are added, it is difficult to achieve legal stability if the method of evaluation is not applied first compared to other acts. The order under the law is distinguishable from the simple request, and the supplementary evaluation method is prescribed by the law, and the supplementary evaluation method is prescribed by the law. In addition, the supplementary evaluation method is not only the norm of rights of the people, but also the norm of rights, and it is also the norm of judicial evaluation that regulates the market price as the standard of evaluation.

(v)the method of assessing the stock value of an unlisted corporation shall reflect the corporation’s value in a reasonable manner;

The purpose of acquiring shares of the relevant company is, rather than to realize capital gains by increasing the value of shares, taking into account the fact that the purpose of acquiring shares of the relevant company is to take part in the management by acquiring control over the relevant company, and accordingly, the time of acquisition is an important factor. In other words, if the net asset value, such as the net asset value of the company, which is a premise for the value assessment, is the net asset value after the date of donation, even though the date of donation did not reach the interval after the date of donation, it shall be sufficient to prove that there was no change in the net asset value between the date of donation and the date of appraisal (see Supreme Court Decision 92Nu251, Feb. 12, 1993).

⑹ 주식의 경우 속성상 그 시가의 변동이 매우 심한 관계로 그 시가는 어느 시점

The issue of whether it is based on “B” is very important factor. If the situation of a company is good at the time of appraisal of stocks, the price of the stocks can be assessed high, and even after the stock price is assessed high, if the situation of the company becomes worse rapidly after the issuance of stocks, the stock price may decline. Therefore, in calculating the market price of unlisted stocks according to supplementary evaluation methods, the law defines the evaluation base date and interpret it as the donation date shall not be easily changed or reflected after the evaluation date. In addition, if it is demanded to reflect the situation of the company that occurred after the donation date, the imposition of gift tax according to supplementary evaluation methods would be unreasonable disposal, and the causes that may adversely affect the appraisal of stocks that occurred after donation need to be restricted.

⑺ 증여재산의 가액은 과세처분 당시가 아닌 증여일 당시를 기준으로 산정하여야함이 대원칙이고(상속세및증여세법 제47조 제1항), 비상장주식을 보충적 평가방법에 의하여 평가함에 있어 상속세및증여세법 제55조 제1항은 "법인의 순자산가액은 평가기준일 현재 당해 법인의 자산을 상속세및증여세법 제60조 내지 제66조의 규정에 의하여 평가한 가액에서 부채를 차감한 가액으로 한다"고 규정하며, 상속세및증여세법 제60조 제1항은 "당해 재산의 가액을 평가기준일 현재의 '시가'에 의한다"고 규정하고 있는바, 상속세및증여세법은 재산의 평가가 중요하므로, 그 평가시점을 평가기준일로 확실하게 정하고 있음을 알 수 있다.

Moreover, the legislative intent of imposing gift tax on the profits earned by the other party to the transaction due to the deemed donation of unlisted stocks is to cope with the variable donation act and promote the fairness of taxation. Therefore, the evaluation of whether the donation constitutes a gift and the market price, which is the basis for calculating the value of the gift, is very important. In the end, in imposing gift tax, the "market price" should be recognized in circumstances that can be deemed to properly reflect the objective exchange value as of the date of donation, and the setting of the time limit for market price or market price calculation by the relevant statutes should reflect the value of assets at the specific point of time as of the base date of appraisal

⑻ 법인세법 기본통칙(40-69…4)은 "건설업을 영위하는 내국법인의 소득금액을 계산함에 있어서 당초 작업진행률에 의하여 계상한 수입금액이 공사계약의 해약으로 인하여 수입금액으로 확정된 금액과 차액이 발생된 경우에는 그 차액을 해약일이 속하는 사업연도의 익금 또는 손금에 산입한다"고 규정하고 있으므로, 분양계약이 수분양자의 계약조건 불이행 등으로 해제되었다면 AA개발로서는 계약이 해제된 사업연도에 익금과 손금을 재계산하여 계상할 수 있다. 즉 미래에 실현될 이익을 한꺼번에 인식하여 혹은 향후 우연히 발생하게 되는 손해를 소급하여 법인의 순자산가치 내지 순손익액 계산에 반영할 경우 평가기준일 현재 자산평가의 왜곡을 초래하는 결과가 된다.

⑼ 양도소득세는 자산의 양도로 인한 소득에 대하여 과세되는 것으로서 그 매매

If a contract becomes null and void from the beginning or is revoked later, etc., in principle, the transferor’s sales price shall be returned to the transferee, and thus, it cannot be deemed as taxable subject to capital gains tax, considering the transferor’s income (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Du23644, Jul. 21, 201). This differs from the computation of market price under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act.

⑽ 피고는 관련 규정에 따라 최근 3년간의 순손익액의 가중평균을 적용하여 1주

After calculating the net asset value per share by reflecting assets, liabilities, etc. as of the date of donation as of the base date of appraisal, the net asset value per share shall be 212,650 won, and the assessed value per share shall be 6,171 won, and the assessed value per share shall be 3:0,058 won by weighted average of the above net profit value and loss value and net asset value:2.

⑾ 조세의무는 법령이 정한 과세요건이 완성된 때 성립하므로, 과세요건이 성립된 이후 법령의 개정으로 관련 세목이 폐지된 경우, 즉 피적용자에게 유리하게 개정된 경우라도 과세요건 성립 당시의 종전 법령에 따라 과세처분할 수 있다고 봄이 상당한 바(대법원 1993. 5. 11. 선고 92누18399 판결 참조), 그와 같은 법리에 비추어 보더라도 과세요건 성립 이전에 발생하였는데 누락되었다거나 그 발생의 기초되는 사실관계가 이미 성립되어 있었다는 등의 사정이 없는 한 과세요건 성립 이후 발생한 사유는 그것이 비록 조세의무자에게 유리한 사정이라 하여도 그 소급효를 제한함이 상당하다.

⑿ 법인세의 경우 분양계약이 장래 해제된 경우 그 소급효를 인정하여 소득이 실현되지 아니한 것으로 보아 당초 성립하였던 납세의무는 효력이 상실된다고 판단되었음은 앞서 본 바와 같다. 그러나 법인세는 권리확정주의에 따라 일단 확정된 권리에 대하여 장래 이익의 발생을 전제로 납세의무를 인정하여 소득세를 부과하는 것으로 장래 그 이익이 실제로 실현되지 아니한 경우 그 이익 실현을 전제로 이미 발생한 납세의무는 전제를 상실하게 되는 결과 그와 같은 소급적용이 필요하다고 볼 수 있다. 그러나 이 사건 주식에 관한 증여세의 경우 평가기준일인 증여일 당시 주식의 증여로 인해 발생한 이익, 즉 그 시점에서의 주식의 가치에 대한 과세라 할 것이지, 이를 장래 실현될 주식의 금전적 가치에 대한 과세(그 주식의 가치가 유지될 것을 조건으로 미리 과세하는 것이 아님)라고 할 수 없으므로, 그 성격을 달리한다. 따라서 장래 시점에서 후발적 사유를 포함시켜 평가한 주식의 가치가 하락하였다 하더라도, 평가기준일 당시의 주식 가치에는 아무런 영향이 없으므로, 이를 미리 혹은 소급하여 반영할 수도 없다.

In addition, the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act was newly established on February 2, 2012 Article 69(3) (amended by January 1, 2012).

After the commencement of the business year, "where the difference between the amount determined by the rate of work progress due to the cancellation of the contract for construction has occurred, the difference shall be included in the gross income or deductible expenses for the business year which includes the cancellation date of the contract, and according to this, the amount of income for each business year shall not be changed retroactively. Accordingly, if the contract is rescinded after the enforcement of the above provision, the amount of income under the Corporate Tax Act would be changed in the event that the contract is rescinded after the enforcement of the above provision. Thus, if the interpretation is made as alleged by the plaintiff, it would result in the change

⒀ 상속세및증여세법 기본통칙(63-56…10)은 "상속세및증여세법 시행령 제56조 제3항에 따라 순손익액

In the calculation of B, where there is a change in the amount of stock valuation due to the correction of corporate tax on the corporation, the tax base and tax amount of the inheritance tax and gift tax shall be corrected pursuant to Article 76(4) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. However, the basic rules merely serve as a guideline for the performance of business inside the tax office and have no legal effect. However, even according to the above contents, it merely failed to reflect the omitted or modified matters in the calculation of the market price of unlisted stocks according to the supplementary evaluation method, and later, if there is a change in the amount of income due to the correction of corporate tax, the net profit and loss also vary accordingly. Thus, the amount of stock valuation should be calculated as the market price of unlisted stocks and the amount of the gift tax should be corrected accordingly. In addition, it is insufficient to serve as the basis for the expanded

In addition, the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22038, Feb. 18, 2010)

(B) Article 25-2 Subparag. 2 provides that “When a contract related to the effect of transaction or act, etc., which is the basis of calculating the tax base and the amount of tax in the initial return, determination or correction, is rescinded by the exercise of the right of rescission or is cancelled or cancelled due to unavoidable reasons that occurred after the formation of the relevant contract” as one of the grounds for the latter rectification, it refers to the case where the gift tax base in relation to the gift tax in this case, i.e., the gift contract or the obligation-sharing contract, etc., which is the basis for the calculation of the value after deducting the relevant obligation from the amount of the gift tax, is rescinded or cancelled, it shall not be a direct basis

E) Sub-decisions

In light of the above circumstances, in the event that the market price of the instant shares, which are unlisted stocks, is assessed by supplementary valuation methods, the net asset value that serves as the basis thereof and the net profit and loss for the recent three years, should be calculated by the value as of the date of donation, and it is reasonable to deem that it is not possible to recognize the retroactive effect of rescission

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

2) As to the assertion of violation of the principle of trust protection

A) In general, in order to apply the principle of trust and good faith to the tax authority’s acts in tax law relations, the tax authority must issue a public opinion list that is the object of taxpayer trust, and the taxpayer has no reason to be attributable to the taxpayer when the taxpayer trusted that the tax authority’s opinion list is justifiable, and what is the taxpayer’s opinion list should be trusted and what is, and the tax authority’s disposition contrary to the opinion list should be made against the tax authority’s opinion list, thereby infringing the taxpayer’s interest (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du9103, Nov. 26, 2002). Such principle of trust protection or the principle of respect for tax practices under Article 18(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes applies only to special circumstances where the taxpayer’s trust is deemed to conform to the concept of justice even if there is a sacrifice of the principle of legality (see Supreme Court Decision 201Du1253, Oct. 25, 2002).

B) The following circumstances are acknowledged in light of the purport of the entire argument in the health department, the prior recognition fact, and the macroscopic evidence, and ① the corporate tax and value-added tax have been refunded to the competent district tax office, as alleged by the Plaintiff, by retroactively applying the sales cancellation portion to the sales cancellation portion. However, even if the corporate income was calculated after the audit by the National Tax Service after the audit by the main office of the National Tax Service and re-revision the valuation of the stocks of this case, it is difficult to deem the Defendant to have issued a public opinion order on the Plaintiff solely for these reasons. ② The principle of trust protection is not to protect the public trust of the administrative agency's public opinion list, but to protect the citizens from damages that may arise from any act of the people based on such trust. In addition, there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was any act of protecting the Plaintiff with trust in the Defendant's opinion list. ③ If the Defendant could not legally evaluate the value of the stocks of this case under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, it seems that there is a concern that the Defendant would significantly undermine the public interest by the other taxpayer's.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

3) As to the assertion of violation of the principle of equity

Inasmuch as the value at the time of the disposal of the instant shares calculated by supplementary evaluation method was assessed as at the time of the payment of the amount of tax calculated by the said disposal to the stocks, i.e., the value at the time of the payment in kind, i.e., payment in kind, under the circumstance that the said amount of tax was assessed higher than the value at the time of payment in kind, the instant disposition that assessed the instant shares in accordance with the supplementary evaluation method cannot be deemed as contrary to the principle of equity, insofar as the basis provisions on the evaluation timing and evaluation methods differ (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du8652, Mar. 12, 2009).

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

4) As to the illegality of imposition of additional tax

A) If the cause for the imposition falls under the cause for extension of due date under Article 6(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes or the taxpayer’s failure to perform his/her duty is “justifiable cause”, no penalty shall be imposed (Article 48(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes).

B) “Justifiable cause” falls under a general and abstract concept, and specifically falls under any case.

The question is whether it is a matter of question. Generally, when there is a circumstance that can justify the taxpayer's failure to know his/her duty, or when there is a reason that it is unreasonable to expect the party to fulfill his/her duty, that is, when there is no possibility to expect the liability, there is a justifiable reason. However, in detail, an individual decision is required in a balance of profits, taking into account all circumstances into account the purpose of the additional tax system, based on the general circumstances. However, since an additional tax is an administrative sanction with the nature of administrative order punishment imposed on the nonperformance of duty under tax law, the taxpayer's intentional and negligent act does not require a separate requirement (see Supreme Court Decision 93Nu6744, Jun. 8, 1993).

C) However, the Supreme Court: (a) in a case where a taxpayer fails to perform his/her duty on the taxpayer’s fault even if the tax authority could correct it clearly if it was immediately examined; (b) the taxpayer was unable to obtain a notification in violation of the tax law because it was not familiar with the tax law; and (c) in a case where the tax authority did not take corrective instructions, etc. upon receipt of the notification, the taxpayer cannot expect the performance of the tax liability because of the litigation; or (d) in a case where the company was in the process of corporate reorganization proceedings, the taxpayer did not know whether the corporate tax is imposed on the difference between the method of assessment of inherited property or the book value of assets and the market value of the assets; and (b) in a case where the taxpayer neglected the duty to report and pay under the law by trusting the purport of the decision of the national tax adjudication lawsuit different from the Supreme Court, the taxpayer merely neglected the tax official’s wrong explanation and thereby neglects the duty to do so; (c) the Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act restricts the import declaration prior to entry into force of the tax law.

D) In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances are acknowledged as follows: (i) the Plaintiff failed to properly perform its duty to report on the statutory interpretation; (ii) the date of donation of the stocks in this case from December 15, 2006 to March 2007, there is no room for doubt as to the statutory interpretation; (iii) the Plaintiff merely applied for rectification of corporate tax and accepted it at the end of wrong statutory interpretation, and accepted it at the district tax office having jurisdiction over the first place of correction; (iv) the Plaintiff did not have any other legitimate reason for failing to perform its duty to report; and (v) the Plaintiff did not have any other legitimate reason for failing to perform its duty to pay corporate tax; and (v) the Plaintiff did not have any other legitimate reason for failing to perform its duty to pay corporate tax; and (v) the Plaintiff did not have any other legitimate reason for failing to perform its duty to pay corporate tax; and (v) the Plaintiff did not have any other reason for failing to perform its duty to pay corporate tax; and (v) the Plaintiff’s opinion that the tax office did not have any other justifiable reason for failing to impose corporate tax.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be dismissed.

As the conclusion is justified, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.