가. 원고가 대표이사로 있는 AAA 주식회사(이하 'AAA'이라 한다)는 OO시 OO면 OO리 OOO 유지 18,684㎡(이하 '이 사건 토지'라 한다)에 관한 OO지방법원 OO지원 20XX타경XXXX호 임의경매절차에서 제4회 매각기일인 2013. 5. 2.에 위 토지를 OOO원(이하 '이 사건 경매가액'이라 한다)에 매수신고하여 2013. 5.9. 매각허가결정을 받은 후 2013. 8. 14. 위 대금을 납부함으로써 그 소유권을 취득하였다.

B. On December 10, 2013, the Plaintiff acquired 16,000 shares (hereinafter “instant shares”) totaling 8,000 shares (hereinafter “instant shares”) from Kakain BB and CCC as a specially related person, respectively, at KRW 5,000 per share.

C. As a result of the investigation of changes in stocks on the transfer of the instant shares, the director of the tax office notified the Defendant of the results that “the value of the instant land was assessed as the officially assessed individual land price pursuant to Article 60(3) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 13557, Dec. 15, 2015; hereinafter the same) and the market value of the instant shares calculated based on such assessment is an OOO (hereinafter “the assessed assessed assessed individual land price”) and that “the Plaintiff obtained donated profits equivalent to the difference between the price paid by the Plaintiff by taking over the said shares at a low price and the market value,” and on December 1, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition of imposition of OOO and OOO(hereinafter the “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 6 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The auction price of this case is determined from December 10, 201 to seven months prior to the date of donation of the stocks of this case (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25195, Feb. 21, 2013). The land of this case is classified as a production management area, military base and military installation protection area, and thus, the above auction price is determined at a level of 35% at least three times after three times after the bidding. The land of this case, like the land of this case, was assessed at a price higher than the appraised price or the standard market price, and the neighboring land of this case at a price lower than the above appraisal price, should be deemed as the price of the stocks of this case after consultation with the appraisal committee pursuant to the proviso of Article 49(1) and (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25195, Feb. 21, 2014; hereinafter the same shall apply). It should be deemed as the market price of the land of this case.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) According to Articles 35(1), 60(1) through (3), and 61(1)1 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and Article 49(1)3, 49(2)3, and 49(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, where a person acquires property from a third person at a price below the market price, the difference between the price and the market price shall be deemed the value of donated property equivalent to profits prescribed by Presidential Decree, and the appraisal of donated property shall be based on the market price as of the date of donation. In addition, the market price shall be deemed ordinarily established when a free transaction is made between many and unspecified persons, and where an auction is made within three months before and after the date of donation of the relevant property or similar property, such auction price may be deemed the market price. Furthermore, even in cases of an auction other than the above evaluation period, if it is deemed that there are no special circumstances such as price fluctuation during the period from the donation date to the date when the sale price is determined, the market price may be recognized as the market price through consultation with the appraisal committee.

2) In light of the following circumstances, the instant disposition based on the market price of the instant shares calculated on the premise that the assessed price of the instant individual land price is deemed the market price of the instant land is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise is without merit, and it does not change on the ground that the Defendant did not calculate the market price of the said land by re-auditing transaction example, etc. of the surrounding land.

① Article 60(2) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and Article 49(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, which appears to adequately reflect the objective exchange values as of the date of donation, shall be recognized as the market price within three months before and after the date of donation. There is no sales price or auction price since the land of this case was purchased, appraised, expropriated, sold, or sold within three months before and after the date of donation.

② Meanwhile, the Plaintiff asserts that the auction price of the instant land ought to be the market price of the instant land. However, as the auction price of the said land was submitted three times at the auction procedure, the appraisal price of the said land was considerably reduced to approximately 35.3% of the appraised value of the said land on April 2, 2012 (i.e., OO., KRW 35.3% of the appraised value of the said land (i.e., KRW 35., KRW 2012). The officially assessed individual land price per square meter of the said land is 2012, 2013, OOO, 2014, OOOO, 2015, OOOO, and 2016, the auction price of the said land continues to increase to the market price of the said land is difficult to readily conclude that there are no special circumstances between the date on which the auction price of the instant land was determined and the donation date.

③ The adjacent land of this case, which the Plaintiff entered into comparative cases, does not seem similar to the land at issue, such as the area, use, standard market price, appraisal price, and auction price compared to the standard market price.

④ Considering the above circumstances, it seems difficult to calculate the market price of the instant land, and furthermore, AA voluntarily appropriated revaluation reserves as OOO at the time of filing a corporate tax return for the year 2013, thereby revaluated the instant land as an OO member who conducts a little award on the assessed individual land price of the instant case. However, even when filing a corporate tax return for the year 2015, it was also possible to additionally add the revaluation reserve OO to the said land.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.