[2] The method of assessing the net asset value of the pertinent corporation, which serves as the basis for assessing the value of unlisted stocks subject to donation

[3] The case holding that it is lawful to assess the corporation's liabilities based on the membership fee in the account book for the golf club membership in calculating the value of the company's shares

[4] The case holding that it is lawful to calculate the net asset value of a corporation on the basis of the balance sheet as of the 12th day after the donation

[5] The meaning of the principle of non-sufficiency in tax statutes

[2] Article 5 (5) 1 (b) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13196, Dec. 31, 190); Article 5 (5) 1 (c) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13196, Dec. 31, 190) provides the supplementary evaluation method of unlisted stocks; where the above supplementary evaluation method provides that the net asset value of the relevant corporation as of the date of donation shall be the value appraised as of the date of donation as prescribed by the Enforcement Decree, and the net asset value evaluation can be based on the reliable appraisal method's market value. In case where there is a market price appraisal report only on part of the assets owned by the relevant corporation or the acquisition value by ordinary transaction, it shall not be deemed that there is any illegality in calculating the market price by the relevant market price appraisal report or acquisition value. Even if the acquisition value is 1 year and eight months before the date of donation, if the tax authority proves that the value of each asset at each time of donation is higher than that at the date of donation.

[3] The case holding that it is lawful to assess the corporation's liabilities based on the supplementary evaluation method under Article 5 (5) 1 (b) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13196 of Dec. 31, 190), on the ground that the membership fee of the club operated by the corporation is the membership fee of the club and the corporation is required to return only the membership fee at the time of the member's withdrawal from the membership, and the corporation does not have any right to the membership fee

[4] The case holding that, in relation to the supplementary assessment method of unlisted stocks as stipulated in Article 5 (5) 1 (b) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13196 of Dec. 31, 190), the taxation authority cannot be deemed unlawful to calculate the net asset value of the corporation based on the balance sheet as of the 12th day after the donation date of stocks, and the base date and the donation date of the balance sheet are only 12 days, and there is no difference between the base date and the donation date of the corporation

[5] The principle of non-payment of tax statutes or the principle of non-taxation of retroactive taxation means that, in the event of the enactment or amendment of a tax statute, or the amendment of a tax authority’s interpretation or guidelines to the statutes, the pertinent statutes cannot be applied to the facts of taxation requirements which were closed before the validity thereof. It does not restrict the application of new statutes to the facts of taxation requirements which were pending before or after the lapse thereof.

1. As to the first imposition disposition

A. It is discussed that the tax authorities have the burden of proving that the valuation of donated property is difficult to calculate the market price at the time of donation, and that it is difficult to calculate the market price (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Nu23, Jun. 13, 1995; 92Nu16218, Jun. 11, 1993; 92Nu1618, Jun. 11, 1993; 200Nu1999, Feb. 29, etc.). However, the market price in this context means an objective exchange price formed through a normal transaction, and even if there is a transaction example, it is difficult to calculate the market price of the donated property if it is not a normal transaction to properly reflect the objective exchange value of the donated property, it is difficult to determine the market price of the non-listed property at the time of donation.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that since the non-party corporation's shares of Hanwon Kinca club (hereinafter the non-party corporation and the shares of this case) are non-listed shares and the trading price of which is KRW 5,000 per share, the trading price of which is 5,00 won per share cannot be viewed as a normal transaction which reflects the objective exchange price of the shares of this case as a proper price for the shares. On the other hand, the plaintiff's own evaluation of the shares of this case was 10,312 won, and there is no other example of transaction which reflects the objective exchange price formed by normal transaction, it is difficult for the defendant to calculate the market price of the shares of this case, and the amount assessed by supplementary evaluation method pursuant to Article 5 (5) 1 (b) of the Enforcement Decree to recognize as the donation price of the shares of this case is legitimate. In light of the records and records, the court below's determination is just, or there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to this issue.

B. Article 5 (5) 1 (b) of the Enforcement Decree provides for the supplementary evaluation method of unlisted stocks. Article 5 (5) 1 (c) of the Enforcement Decree provides that the above supplementary evaluation method provides that the net asset value of the relevant corporation as of the date of donation shall be the value appraised as prescribed by the Enforcement Decree of the relevant corporation. The net asset value evaluation method can be based on the market price appraisal document of a reliable appraisal institution. Thus, where the market price appraisal document only concerning part of the assets held by the relevant corporation or the acquisition value through ordinary transactions is verified, any error is not found in calculating the market price of the relevant assets. The market price of the appraisal document at the time of donation is calculated three years prior to the date of donation. Even if the acquisition value is 1 year and eight months prior to the date of donation, if the tax office proves that the value of assets at each time is not higher than the market price as of the date of donation, the appraisal price or acquisition value at the time of donation of the relevant assets can be deemed as the market price at the time of donation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Nu139.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below recognized the fact that the land price of the non-party company's assets among the non-party company's assets was increased across the nation from April 30, 1988 to December 19, 1989, which is the date when the non-party company acquired part of the non-party company's assets from the date when the non-party company acquired the non-party company's assets, based on macro evidence, and based on this, it is reasonable to view the appraisal price and acquisition price of each of the above lands as the market price at the time of donation of each of the above lands. The above measures of the court below are just in accordance with the above legal principles, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the supplementary evaluation methods of non-listed stocks as discussed above. There is no ground to examine this issue.

C. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that it is legitimate for the non-party company to evaluate the debt of the non-party company on the basis of the non-party company's membership fee in calculating the value of the shares of this case according to the supplementary evaluation method, on the ground that the non-party company as a member of the non-party company's membership fee is to return only the membership fee at the time of the non-party company's withdrawal, and the non-party company does not have any right to the membership fee, and it is legitimate for the defendant to evaluate the debt of the non-party company on the basis of the non-party company's membership fee in the account book, and there is no violation of the market

D. According to the records and the reasoning of the judgment below, the defendant can be found to have calculated the net asset value of the non-party company based on the balance sheet as of December 31, 1989, which was 12 days after the date of donation of the shares of this case. Accordingly, the plaintiff asserted that the assessment of net asset value of the non-party company was unlawful since it was not based on the date of donation. However, according to the records of this case, the base point of preparation of the balance sheet in this case and the point of donation are not different from 12 days, and the value of the above balance sheet in this case was reported to the tax office by the non-party company at the time of declaration of corporate tax, and it cannot be deemed that there was any special circumstance to deem that the net asset value of the non-party company has increased rapidly during the 12-day period. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the defendant calculated the net asset value of the non-party company based on the balance sheet in this case, and therefore, the judgment below did not affect the conclusion of the judgment.

2. As to the second imposition disposition

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below recognized the fact that the non-party acquired a gold of 405,000,000 square meters for 496.8 square meters in Seocho-gu, Seoul ( Address omitted) on September 22, 1987 and thereafter on December 21, 1989, the donation date of the above land. Based on this, the court below determined that even if the above land was a site at the time when the non-party acquired it, it is reasonable to view the above acquisition value of the above land as the market price at the time of the donation, even if the above land was a site at the time when the non-party acquired it, and the above acquisition value of the above land was completed at the time of the donation. In light of the above legal principles, it is just in the judgment of the court below in light of the above legal principles, and there is no error of law in the appraisal method of donated property as discussed above. There is no ground for discussion on this issue.

3. As to the third imposition disposition

The principle of non-payment of tax-related Acts and subordinate statutes or the principle of non-taxation of retroactive taxation is not to limit the application of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes to the facts subject to taxation which were closed before the enactment or amendment of the tax-related Acts and subordinate statutes, or any revision to the interpretation or management guidelines of the tax-related Acts and subordinate statutes, but not to limit the application of new Acts and subordinate statutes to the facts subject to taxation that occurred thereafter (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Nu14308, Aug. 11, 1995; 93Nu131, May 24, 1994; 93Nu131, May 24, 1994).

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

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)