B. The burden of proving the legality of taxation by calculating the market price as a supplementary assessment method under Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act

B. The burden of proving that there was no need to select a supplementary assessment method because it is difficult to calculate the market price at the time of donation is the tax authority with the legality of taxation.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

According to the provisions of Article 34-5, Article 9(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act and Articles 42 and 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the value of donated property shall, in principle, be appraised according to the market price at the time of donation. However, if it is difficult to calculate the market price, the value of donated property may be assessed according to the method prescribed in Article 5(2) through (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act,

Therefore, in the event that a large number of transactions such as listed stocks are traded every day, the market price will be deemed the market price, but in the case of unlisted stocks with less market value, where there are examples of sale deemed to have properly reflected the objective exchange value, such price shall be deemed the market price, and when it is difficult to calculate the market price in any other way, supplementary evaluation methods under the above law shall be followed (see Supreme Court Decision 85Nu804, Feb. 25, 1986).

In addition, the burden of proving that there was no need to select a supplementary assessment method because it is difficult to calculate the market price at the time of donation is the opinion of this party member (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 84Nu670, Mar. 12, 1985; 84Nu84Nu322, Nov. 27, 1984). According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the defendant's assertion that the value of the non-listed shares of this case acquired by the plaintiff is 4,303.87 won per share, based on the assessment method stipulated in Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act. (In fact, the value claimed by the defendant is the same as the amount calculated by the above assessment method) that the defendant properly reflected the objective exchange value of the shares of this case, or that it was difficult to calculate the market price by other methods, and that the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the remaining amount of the non-listed shares of this case.

In addition, even if the court below judged that the value of the shares of this case was a reasonable transaction price, it was calculated by the statutory appraisal method, in light of the records, there is no evidence to recognize it as a reasonable transaction price, and there is no effect on the conclusion of the judgment. It is groundless to

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Byung-su (Presiding Justice)