It cannot be deemed that there is a defect in the appraisal value, and even if the appraisal value is the market price, it is unlawful.

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

(2) As to the imposition of additional tax

(A) Penalty taxes under tax law are to facilitate the exercise of taxation rights and the realization of tax claims.

(2) If a taxpayer violates any of the obligations referred to in the Act, such as reporting and tax payment, without any justifiable reason;

administrative sanctions imposed under the conditions prescribed by individual tax laws. Such sanctions are tax payments.

If it is unreasonable for the obligor to have failed to know his/her duty, he/she shall present it to the party.

of the parties to the agreement that it is unreasonable to expect the parties to perform the obligations.

If there is a justifiable ground that it is not likely to cause a breach of duty, such as when the duty is determined, it shall be imposed.

No one may pay (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du13632, Jan. 27, 2005). Moreover, additional additional dues for unfaithful payment

In order to induce a taxpayer to pay the tax in good faith, the return and payment shall be made.

The unpaid amount shall be deemed to have received financial benefits by the deadline, and the violation of the liability for payment.

In full view of the fact that it is an administrative sanction imposed on the value of the donated property, the appraisal of the value of the donated property

Even if the tax amount has not been paid due to a difference in the circumstances, the subject of imposition of additional tax for unfaithful payment

The above circumstances alone do not require exclusion from the amount of tax to be paid.

No reasonable ground may be deemed to exist with respect to payments made by the Defendant (Supreme Court Decision 201Da1548, Nov. 27, 1998)

96Nu16308, see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu16308.

(B) The Ministry of Health and Welfare had verified the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Order, and the Plaintiff had assessed the value of the instant case.

It is sufficiently necessary to impose gift tax by re-appraisal if it is lower than the officially assessed individual land price.

Inasmuch as the appraisal value was believed to be well known, the mere fact that the appraisal value was believed cannot be attributable to the failure to perform his/her duties.

shall not constitute a case in which any reason exists.

3. Conclusion

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

(c)

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

section 3.

A. On March 23, 2011, the Plaintiff was donated KRW 4592 square meters prior to O-O (hereinafter “instant land”) and KRW 130 million in cash from GBB, Gangdong-gu, Seoul. On June 30, 2011, the Plaintiff reported to the Defendant on March 14, 2011 the assessed value of KRW 1,450,50,000 for the instant land (date of appraisal: March 14, 201; date of preparation: March 14, 2011; March 14, 2011; hereinafter “d”) and the assessed value of KRW 1,540,176,00 (date of appraisal: March 8, 201; date of preparation: date of reporting to the Defendant on March 39, 2015; and the appraised value of KRW 305,00 (hereinafter “Plaintiff”).

B. On the ground that “the Plaintiff’s appraisal value is less than 90/100 of the officially assessed individual land price, which is less than 64.66%.” After which, on January 1, 2013, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to make a re-appraisal. On the other hand, on the other hand, the Defendant issued the Plaintiff a notice of dismissal of KRW 1,701,920 (the base date of appraisal: March 14, 201; the date of preparation: October 10, 2012) and the appraisal value of KRW 1,67,394,00 (the base date of appraisal: March 8, 201; October 8, 2012; hereinafter “the date of preparation”); and thereafter, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition of dismissal of KRW 1,689,657,00 (hereinafter “the gift tax”); and the Plaintiff was subject to a notice of dismissal of the gift tax (hereinafter “the gift tax”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2 (including additional number), Eul evidence 1, 2, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) According to Article 60(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12168, Jan. 1, 2014; hereinafter "the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act") and Article 49(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23040, Jul. 25, 201; hereinafter the same shall apply), the appraisal value which can be recognized as the market price should be prepared within three months before or after March 23, 2011, which is the base date for appraisal. As such, the Defendant’s appraisal value is not only prepared by Doing it, but also falls short of 90% of the publicly assessed individual land price. Accordingly, the disposition of this case’s no taxation without law, which was issued at the market price after one year and six months from the base date for assessment, was unlawful against the tax equity.

(2) In order to regard the retroactive appraisal value as the market price, it shall undergo consultation with the evaluation committee. In addition, Article 49(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that “if two or more market prices exist, the value corresponding to the date nearest to the evaluation base date shall be deemed the market price.” Thus, the appraisal value near the evaluation base date shall be deemed the market

On the other hand, in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s appraisal value and the Defendant’s appraisal value are identical or similar to the comparison standard land, regional factors, etc.; (b) the Plaintiff’s appraisal value (64.66% of the market price based on the individual publicly notified land price) is not lower than the Defendant’s appraisal value (73% of the market price based on the general publicly notified land price); and (c) the Defendant’s appraisal value is less than 90% of the market price, the Plaintiff’

(3) The Plaintiff reported gift tax with the belief of only the appraisal value, and subsequently received the imposition of gift tax on the ground that it does not exceed 90% of the officially assessed individual land price, which constitutes “where justifiable grounds exist”. Therefore, the imposition of penalty tax in the instant disposition is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

"(A) The land in this case is the land located within the natural green belt near the north-dong area of Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, "OOOICIC", and the land category (land category): the officially assessed individual land price is as follows.

Year

Vacant land (source)

Year

officially announced value (won)

2009445,000

2010467,000

2011467,000

2012467,000

(B) An appraisal corporation calculated the appraisal value on the land of this case with the same comparative standard for the land of this case as the same O-O as the following.

- Table omission - The appraisal line of neighboring land - Other factors gap calculation / The disposal of the part of land promoted by roads - Table omission -

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul Nos. 3, 4, and 7 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) As to the requirement for re-appraisal

(A) The proviso of Article 49(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "if the relevant appraised value falls short of the smaller of the value assessed under Articles 61, 62, 64, and 65 of the Act and the value equivalent to 90/100 of the market value under paragraph (5) of the same Article, the relevant value shall be deemed the market value under Article 60(2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act in the application of the provisions of paragraph (1)." In the light of such law, where there is a value falling under any of the subparagraphs of Article 49(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act on the same or similar property as the relevant property, the relevant value shall be deemed the market value under paragraph (5) of the same Article." In comparison with the appraised value under Article 61(1) through (6) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the relevant value shall be confirmed by comparing it with the assessed value under Article 61(1) through (6) of the Inheritance Tax Act.

(B) Since the instant land price for the instant land is KRW 467,00 on 201, the publicly assessed individual land price for the instant land is KRW 2,144,464,00, the market price under Article 61(1)1 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (i.e., KRW 467,000 x 4,592 x 4,592 m2). Meanwhile, there is no similar case value on the instant land. Therefore, there is no similar case value on the instant land, the market price shall be compared with KRW 1,495,38,000, the Plaintiff’s assessed value, and the market price of KRW 2,144,464,00 based on the publicly assessed individual land price. Therefore, the Defendant is at a price below the market price based on the publicly assessed individual land price. Accordingly, the Defendant may determine the market price by requesting it to another appraisal agency

Meanwhile, the Defendant’s appraisal value is KRW 1,689,657,00, and is higher than the Plaintiff’s appraisal value than KRW 1,495,338,00, and thus, the Defendant’s appraisal value is the market value.

(C) The Plaintiff asserts that the market price cannot be determined on the basis of the Defendant’s appraisal value based on the retroactive appraisal. However, the date of preparation under Article 49(1) and (2)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is the standard for determining the market price if there are several appraisal values, and the Defendant’s re-appraisal is in accordance with the requirement under the proviso of Article 49(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. This is a necessary retroactive appraisal, and the advice of the Evaluation Review Committee is related to the assessment of non-listed shares under the proviso of Article 49(1) and Article 56-2(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. The Defendant’s appraisal value based on the re-appraisal is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s aforementioned assertion is

In addition, the plaintiff asserts that the appraisal value of the plaintiff should be the market price. However, the appraisal result by the appraiser shall respect the appraisal method so long as the appraisal method is not so erroneous that it is against the empirical rule or unreasonable (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da93790, Nov. 29, 2012). e, e, e, appraisal document: the purpose of appraisal, appraisal conditions, price point, investigation period, date of preparation, contents of the object, appraisal amount, appraisal basis, opinion on the determination, appraisal basis and the opinion on the determination of the object list, and the basis for indication of the appraisal list of the object. The appraisal result by the appraiser shall be stated in the appraisal document, and the appraisal method shall be stated in the appraisal method, the calculation process, the selection method of the comparative standard sheet and the land subject to appraisal, the appraisal method and the contents of the building subject to appraisal, etc. shall be written in accordance with the Act on the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate Values, conditions of access, and other factors, etc. shall be distinguished from the individual appraisal factor's's evaluation theory.