보충적 평가방법에 의한 비상장주식의 평가가 시가주의에 위배라는 주장의 당부[국승]
The legitimacy of the assertion that the assessment of unlisted stocks by supplementary assessment methods violates the market price principle.
Although the provisions of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act concerning the supplementary valuation method of unlisted stocks are amended, it is intended to appropriately calculate the market price at the time, so the evaluation of unlisted stocks under Article 54 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act is not contrary to the market price principle.
Article 87 of the former Corporate Tax Act: Scope of Market Price
Article 54 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke the disposition of imposition of corporate tax of KRW 7,502,524,490 on April 1, 2006 against the plaintiff for the business year of 2002.
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
The reasoning for the court's explanation on this case is as follows: "from December 26, 2006," "from December 26, 2005," "from December 26, 2005," 4, 9, and 10 of the fourth 8th 8th son's decision of the court of the court of the court of the court of the court of the court of the first instance, "le-type ○, which was the representative director of the plaintiff, the shareholder of the plaintiff and the representative director of the plaintiff," "le-type ○, who is the representative director and the representative director of the plaintiff, the plaintiff's shareholder of the plaintiff," and "le-type ○" of the sixth 15th son as the relative of the plaintiff, the shareholder of the court of the court of the first instance," and "le-type ○" is as stated in the reasoning of the court of the first instance except for the addition of the judgment as stated in the second 2th 2th son's judgment.
2. Additional matters to be determined;
A. The plaintiff's assertion
Article 52(2) of the former Corporate Tax Act provides that the market price is applied or deemed applicable to sound common sense and commercial practice and ordinary transactions between unrelated parties, and Article 52(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that matters necessary for the assessment of the market price shall be prescribed by the Presidential Decree. Accordingly, Article 89(2)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that where the market price of unlisted stocks is unclear, the market price of unlisted stocks shall be appraised by applying mutatis mutandis Article 63 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. Even if the method of assessment is changed at a price that is recognized as objectivity and rationality, the difference in the market price shall not occur in essence. Article 63(1)1(c) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that Article 54 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act that provides for the supplementary method of assessment of unlisted stocks shall be revised after the date of the disposition of this case and the difference in the valuation value under each provision before and after the amendment. Thus, Article 89(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act is unlawful.
B. Determination
(1) The market price under Article 52 (2) of the former Corporate Tax Act refers to an objective exchange value formed through a general and normal transaction, and this includes the price assessed in an objective and reasonable manner. Article 52 (2) of the former Corporate Tax Act delegates matters necessary for market price assessment, etc. to the Enforcement Decree, since the definition of market price alone does not clarify the scope of market price.
(2) Article 54(1) and (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20148, Apr. 1, 2011; Presidential Decree No. 20148, Apr. 21, 2011; Presidential Decree No. 20148, Apr. 21, 2011; Presidential Decree No. 20135, Feb. 201; Presidential Decree No. 20135, Feb. 31, 2011; Presidential Decree No. 2010, Feb. 31, 2011; Presidential Decree No. 201358, Feb. 31, 2011; Presidential Decree No. 201477, Feb. 3, 2011; Presidential Decree No. 201358, Feb. 2, 201; Presidential Decree No. 20130, Feb. 3, 2019).
(3) Therefore, Article 89(2)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, whose market value of unlisted stocks is appraised by applying mutatis mutandis Article 63 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, is contrary to the market value principle under Article 52(2) of the Corporate Tax Act, and thus, it cannot be deemed unlawful by deviating from the scope of delegation by the mother
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.