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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of gift tax of KRW 786,182,322 against the Plaintiff on August 12, 2015 is revoked.

A. On December 22, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a contract on the establishment of a newly incorporated company and the acquisition of shares with a company that is a food materials distributor (hereinafter “AAAA”) and agreed to transfer 20% of the common shares of the newly incorporated company that will be owned by the Plaintiff to AAAA (hereinafter “instant contract”).

B. On August 23, 201, the Plaintiff, along with new ○○ and Kim○, established 300,000,000 capital (on a par value: 5,000 won per share, and 60,000 won per share) ○○ Seoul (hereinafter referred to as “○○○○ Seoul”). From September 1, 2011, ○○ Seoul began food materials distribution business from September 1, 201, and the Plaintiff transferred the price of 2,076,086,000 won (hereinafter referred to as “the instant shares”) among 39,179 shares of ○○ Seoul, which the Plaintiff owned, to AAAAA on September 9, 2011 under the instant contract.

C. After conducting a tax investigation with respect to AAA, the director of the Central Regional Tax Office of China transferred the shares of this case at a price significantly higher than 39,185,000 won at the market price (=5,000 won per share x 7,837 shares) based on Article 35 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11130, Dec. 31, 201; hereinafter “former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”), and then notified the Defendant of taxation data to impose gift tax on the value calculated by subtracting 300,000,000 won from the difference between the transfer price and the market price.

D. On July 15, 2015, the Defendant decided to grant gift tax of KRW 841,202,363 (including additional tax of KRW 311,14,163) to the Plaintiff on July 15, 2015, but decided to reduce or correct gift tax of KRW 55,020,041 on July 22, 2015. On August 12, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the decision to reduce or correct gift tax of KRW 786,182,32 on July 15, 2015 and the decision to correct the reduction or correction of gift tax of KRW 841,20,363 (including additional tax of KRW 31,14,163) on the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). Since the Plaintiff appears to have received directly the Plaintiff’s decision on July 15, 2015 and the Defendant’s decision to directly reduce the gift tax of this case on July 28, 2015.

E. On November 5, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a request for review to revoke the instant disposition with the Board of Audit and Inspection. However, the Board of Audit and Inspection dismissed the said request on May 11, 2017, and the Plaintiff received the written decision on July 5, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 7, 9, 17, 18 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

1) The instant contract was concluded to have AAA take over the business network of ○○○ Distribution and ○○ Marart operated by the Plaintiff, etc. by acquiring the Plaintiff’s shares in the ○○ Won Seoul, established by the Plaintiff, and made it possible for the Plaintiff to exclusively use the network. Therefore, the transfer value of the instant shares was included in the value of the appraisal of exclusive and exclusive business rights between ○○ Distribution and ○○ Marart operated by the Plaintiff, etc.

2) Even if the transfer value of the instant shares is considerably higher than the market value, AAAA has taken over the instant shares to secure a stable business network and enter the food materials distribution industry without any additional expense to expand the future by taking over 4,040 business networks of '○○ Distribution' and '○○○ Marart' through the acquisition of the instant shares, and in light of the fact that AAAA has set the acquisition price of the instant shares with a view to securing a stable business network to enter the food materials distribution industry without any additional expense, and that AAA has set the acquisition price of the instant shares, i.e., enhancing the competitiveness of companies following entry into the food materials distribution industry, creating a foundation for improving the profit structure, etc.

3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s transfer of the instant shares to AA in the amount of KRW 2,076,086,000 does not constitute a donation of profits accrued from the transfer of shares at a higher price under Article 35(2) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Facts recognized

1) The instant contract concluded on December 22, 2010 between the Plaintiff and AAAA was included in the following content:

Contracts for the establishment of a newly incorporated company and the acquisition of shares;

AAAA (hereinafter referred to as "A") and the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "B") agree (hereinafter referred to as "this Agreement") as follows:

Article 1 (Purpose and Definition of this Agreement)

1. The purpose of this contract is to take over the business network of '○○ Distribution' and '○○○ Empt', and to establish one or more joint founders (hereinafter collectively referred to as 'A', 'A', 'A', 'A', 'A', and 'the parties', 'the newly incorporated company', 'A' and 'the newly incorporated company', 'A', for food material distribution business, to exclusively use the business network. After Gap acquired the shares of the newly incorporated company from B and C under certain conditions, it is to develop the newly incorporated company through various cooperation such as strategic alliance between B and A, and to determine all matters necessary for Gap to jointly operate the newly incorporated company.

2.The definitions of the principal terms used in this Agreement shall be as follows:

A. '○○ distribution' is a trade name registered by ○○○ as an individual entrepreneur pursuant to Article 5 of the Value-Added Tax Act, and the business registration number is 000-00-00.

(b) The term "○○ Mart" is an individual entrepreneur registered pursuant to Article 5 of the Value-Added Tax Act.

As trade name, the business registration number is 000-00-00.

(c) The term "business network subject to relocation" refers to the business network of "○○ Distribution" and "○○ Marart", and the business network includes a restaurant trader of the president and president of the sub-committee, and a direct sales office, provided that (i) the business network is '○ Distribution'.

Unless otherwise expressly agreed between A and B, individual claims, human resources, and tangible assets arising prior to the date of the business network in accordance with Article 2 of the "○○ Marart" shall be included in the business network subject to the transfer, if there are intellectual property rights of (2) '○ Distribution' and '○○ Marart', unless otherwise agreed between B and B.

Article 2 (Transfer of Business Networks)

1. (1) A concurrently contributes to the establishment of a new company with the same content as section 3 below, while (2) A and C exclusively take over the business network subject to transfer from section 3 under the former cost burden and responsibility of section 3 and C. In this regard, if any of the liabilities (e.g., taxes, expenses, and damages) incurred to the officers and employees of the newly incorporated company, Section 1, and Section 1, the newly incorporated company will immediately carry out the business network at the responsibility of section 3 and exempt the officers and employees of the newly incorporated company, Section 1, and Section 1 from the liability of section 3.

Article 3 (Establishment of New Companies)

1. B and C shall be incorporated in the form of a stock company with the purpose prescribed in Article 1, in accordance with the Acts of the Republic of Korea. The time shall be within 15 days after the completion of the logistics center for the newly incorporated company;

2. The trade name of the newly incorporated company shall be indicated as the name of ○○○ Won, a stock company, and Eul and Byung, when the trade name of the newly incorporated company becomes final and conclusive, shall be registered with the provisional registration prior to its establishment;

Article 4 (Business Purposes and Roles of New Companies)

1. The new company shall carry on the food materials distribution business; and

2. The new company shall be operated mainly for business, delivery, customer management, and the purchase of goods, operation of a logistics center, computer system, etc. for sale shall be conducted through A.

Article 6 (Contents of Establishment of New Company and Acceptance of Shares by Party A)

1. At the time of incorporation of a new company, paid-in capital shall be KRW 300 million, and 100% of the paid-in capital shall be owned by Eul and Byung. Gap shall pay to Eul 2.5 million won out of the above paid-in capital, in addition to the appraised value of the business network subject to relocation, in addition to the assessed value of the previous company subject to relocation, and the amount of investment of Eul and Byung shall be determined by a special agreement

2. The shares referred to in paragraph (1) of this Article issued at the time of the incorporation of a new company shall be 60,000 registered ordinary shares with voting rights of 5,00 won per share.

6. Within 30 days after the incorporation of a newly incorporated company Gap will acquire 20% of the shares issued by a newly incorporated company Eul (hereinafter referred to as "stocks subject to acquisition").

It shall pay 469,440,000 won to B immediately after the conclusion of this contract as down payment (the contract amount shall be calculated by adding 2 to the virtual evaluation - ad hoc2 calculated through prior interview).

The total acquisition price of the stocks subject to acquisition shall be determined by the following evaluation: Provided, That the evaluation of the interests of this tax shall be based on the computer system determined by A, and the appropriateness of the evaluation amount shall be verified by consultation with A and B.

- - The following:

(a) Total acquisition price of stocks subject to acquisition: Average monthly operating income for the three months immediately preceding the establishment of a new company for the business network subject to transfer x 48 times x 20 percent of equity acquisition;

(b) profits mean operating profits for accounting purposes;

Article 14 (Duty to Prohibit Competitive Practices, etc.)

2. B immediately after the incorporation of a newly incorporated company, B performs the procedures for the suspension of business (business closure and termination of report) and the procedures for the suspension of business (business closure) and ○○ Marart and thereafter conducts any business activities that may or may be conducted in competition with the newly incorporated company by '○ Distribution' and '○○ Marart' under the former cost burden and responsibility of B.

shall not be required to make any such manner.

2) The details of each sales report from 2009 to 2015 of ○○won, Seoul and '○○○○○○○ Distribution', and '○○○○○ Distribution' have been closed on October 6, 2014, and '○○○ Marart' closed on January 22, 2018, respectively.

3) On the other hand, AAA entered into the instant contract with the Plaintiff, and entered into a contract similar to the instant contract with other individual entrepreneurs in the food materials distribution industry at the time of acquiring the shares of ○○ Seoul from the Plaintiff, and then took over the shares of the newly incorporated companies established by the individual entrepreneurs. The specific details are as follows.

4) After the director of the Central Regional Tax Office conducted a tax investigation on AAA, each head of the competent tax office imposed gift tax upon each individual entrepreneur who transfers shares of the newly incorporated company to AAA as above, other than the Plaintiff, upon each individual entrepreneur. The relevant individual entrepreneur paid each gift tax imposed without protesting against the imposition of the said gift tax.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 8, 10 through 15, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) Whether the transfer value of the instant shares is significantly higher than the market price

A) Article 35(2) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that where a property is transferred between a person who is not a specially related person at a price substantially higher than the market price due to transactional practice, the transferor of the property shall be presumed to have received a donation of the difference between the price and the market price, and the amount equivalent to profits prescribed by the Presidential Decree shall be deemed

Article 60 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23591, Feb. 2, 2012; hereinafter "the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act") provides that "the value of the property on which an inheritance tax or gift tax is levied under this Act shall be calculated according to the market price as of the date the inheritance commences or the date of donation (paragraph (1)), and the market price under Paragraph (1) shall be determined at the price generally established when transactions are made freely between many and unspecified persons, and shall include the amount recognized as the market price as prescribed by Presidential Decree such as the expropriation price, public sale price, and appraisal price (Article 60(3) and Article 63(1)1 (c) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and Article 54(2) and (4)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23591, Feb. 2, 2012; hereinafter "the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act").

Meanwhile, in the case of unlisted stocks with low market value, the transaction value shall be deemed the market value and the stock value shall not be assessed based on the supplementary evaluation method stipulated in the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. However, since the market value means the objective exchange value formed through the general and normal transaction, in order to be recognized as the market value, the circumstances that can be seen as properly reflecting the objective exchange value at the date of donation should be acknowledged (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du26988, Apr. 26, 2012).

B) In full view of the following facts or circumstances, based on the aforementioned provisions of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and legal principles, the following facts and evidence were examined: (a) the facts acknowledged earlier and the evidence indicated earlier; (b) the submission of the tax information by the head of the AA Tax Office to the head of the AA Tax Office; (c) the submission of the taxation information by the head of the BB; and (d) the submission of the taxation information by the head of the B Tax Office; and (b) the total price of the instant shares is KRW 39,185,00 (= KRW 5,00 per share x 7,837). It is reasonable to deem that the market price of the instant shares is KRW 2,076,086,000 per share x 7,837 shares (= KRW 264,90 per share x 7,837 shares x 36,00,5050,505 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (=).

① Seoul established on August 23, 201, and began food materials distribution business from September 1, 2011. The Plaintiff transferred the instant shares to AAA on September 9, 2011, which was eight days after the date of commencement of the business. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 20763, Oct. 9, 2011; Presidential Decree No. 264,908 won per share.

② Each of the shares of ○○○○○ and Kim ○○○ also owns the shares of ○○○○, Seoul. At the time of the Plaintiff’s transfer of the shares of this case, the shares of ○○○ Seoul were transferred to AAA in approximately KRW 264,987 through KRW 265,009 per share. However, according to the instant contract, the new ○○ and Kim ○○ appears to be a person designated by AAA as a joint founder of ○○, Seoul. Therefore, it is difficult to deem the transfer value of the shares of ○○○○ Seoul as an objective exchange price formed by a general and normal transaction.

③ The Plaintiff asserts that 4,040 sales networks of ○○○ Distribution and ○○○ Marart were transferred, and that 201 was paid for the sales network transfer through the receipt of the instant stock transfer proceeds. However, the number of sales offices in 2011 of ○○○ Won Seoul, which was transferred from the Plaintiff, was limited to 235 sales offices. In light of the fact that part of ○○○○, ○○○, ○○○○, ○○○○, ○○○, ○○, ○○, and ○○ Distribution, etc.) of the sales offices in 2011 of 201, was included in the sales offices in 2012, it is difficult to deem that the entry of 5 evidence alone, by itself, the Plaintiff transferred 4,040 sales networks of ○○○○ Seoul and ○○○ Mart. 201.

④ The Plaintiff, a newly incorporated company, transferred the instant shares to AAA only 80 days after the commencement of the food materials distribution business. In light of the above circumstances, etc., it is difficult to compute the market price of the instant shares. Therefore, it is reasonable to view KRW 5,000 per share, which is the net asset value of the instant shares, calculated according to the supplementary assessment method stipulated in the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act.

2) Whether there was a justifiable reason for a transaction practice

A) The legislative purport of Article 35(2) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is to: (a) in a case where profits equivalent to the difference between the price and the market price are actually transferred without compensation by means of abnormal methods that manipulate the transaction price for the benefit of the transaction partner; (b) thereby coping with and promoting fair taxation by imposing gift tax on the profits earned by the transaction partner. However, since the transaction between unrelated parties does not coincide with each other; (c) it is generally difficult to deem that the difference was donated to the transaction partner solely on the basis that there is a difference between the price and the market price; and (d) it is difficult to deem that Article 35(2) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act added the taxation requirement that “in

In full view of these facts, it is reasonable to view that: (a) where there exists a reasonable ground to believe that the parties to a transaction who acquired property at a high price reflects the objective exchange value; or (b) where there is an objective reason to deem that the transferee’s acquisition of property at the market price was an abnormal transaction from a reasonable economic perspective even without such reason; (c) there is justifiable reason under Article 35(2) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Du61089, Mar. 15, 2018). In such a case, the tax authority bears the burden of proving that there is no justifiable reason for the transaction practice; (d) however, if the tax authority is a reasonable economic person, it may prove that there is no justifiable reason for the transaction practice by submitting data, such as objective circumstance that the transaction price would not have been traded under such conditions at the time of the transaction; and (e) if so proven, it is necessary to deem that there is a specific reason to prove that the transaction would be 2014.

B) We examine the above legal principles based on the above legal principles.

The fact that the sales of '○○ Distribution' and '○○ Marart' have decreased since the time when the Plaintiff transferred the instant shares to AAA, as seen earlier.

However, in full view of the following facts and circumstances that can be recognized by the aforementioned facts and the aforementioned facts and the purport of the entire statements and arguments as stated in Gap evidence 6 and Eul evidence 19, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff and AAAA had reasonable grounds to believe that the transfer value of the shares of this case was a normal price reflecting an objective exchange value, and that AAAA had objective grounds to deem that the transfer value of the shares of this case was an abnormal price from a reasonable economic perspective. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the transfer of shares of this case constitutes "the transfer of property at a price significantly higher than the market price without justifiable grounds under Article 35 (2) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act" under Article 35 (2) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and each statement in Gap evidence 7 through 9 does not interfere with the acceptance of the above facts. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was a justifiable ground for the transaction practice that the Plaintiff transferred the shares of this case to AAA at a price substantially higher than the market price.

The Plaintiff and AAA agreed to calculate the transfer price of the instant shares through the instant contract by the method of the average monthly operating income of the three months immediately before the establishment of the new company of the business network subject to transfer x 48 times x 20% of the shares to be acquired . The Plaintiff alleged that the average monthly operating income of the three months immediately preceding the establishment of ○○○ Seoul, Inc. and the business network held by ○○○○○nam, Inc. had reached approximately 300,000,000 won. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge such assertion by the Plaintiff, and ○○○○○ Mart in the business year 2011, 24,418,239 won business losses, and ○○○○ distribution losses of KRW 667,783,806, respectively, the Plaintiff’s above assertion cannot be accepted.

(C) In addition, as seen earlier, it is difficult to see that the business network of ○○ Distribution and ○○ Marart transferred by the Plaintiff to ○○ Seoul is about 4,040, and as such, the Plaintiff and AAAAAA seems to have not gone through an objective evaluation procedure when determining the transfer value of the instant shares.

AAAA is under the control of ○○ Stock Company, a large company holding 51.94% of its issued stocks, at the time of the conclusion of the instant contract, and it is difficult for a large company to directly enter into the food materials distribution industry at the time due to the social division of companies. In order to secure a large quantity of the nationwide distribution network, the individual entrepreneurs, including the Plaintiff, established a new company such as ○○ Won Seoul, and let them transfer their respective business networks to the new company, and secure a large quantity of the nationwide circulation network in the manner of bypassing the acquisition of the shares of the new company from the individual entrepreneurs including the Plaintiff. In this process, AAAA seems to have calculated the transfer value of shares in accordance with the amount requested by the individual entrepreneurs including the Plaintiff, without objectively evaluating the value of shares of the newly incorporated company including 00 Seoul.

The remaining individual entrepreneurs who have transferred the shares of the newly incorporated company to AAA, excluding the plaintiff, are deemed to have paid each gift tax imposed on each individual to the extent that each tax authority's point of view that each transfer value of the shares falls considerably higher than the market value that is not properly reflected in the objective exchange value of the shares.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so ordered as per Disposition.

shall be ruled.

/ former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 11130, Dec. 31, 201)

Article 35 (Donation, etc. of Profits from Transfer at Low or High Price)

(1) When the relevant property is acquired or transferred to any of the following persons, an amount equivalent to the difference between the price and the market price, which is equivalent to the profits prescribed by Presidential Decree, shall be deemed the value of donated property:

1. Where a person takes over property from a third person at a price lower than the market price, the transferee of such property;

2. In case where the property is transferred to another person at a price above the market price, the transferor of such property;

(2) In applying paragraph (1), where property is acquired or transferred by transfer between persons other than persons having a special relationship without justifiable grounds, and where property is acquired or transferred by transfer at a price significantly lower than the market price or at a price significantly higher than the market price in light of transaction practices, the amount equivalent to profits prescribed by Presidential Decree shall be presumed to have been donated with the difference between the price and the market

(3) Persons in a special relationship under paragraph (2), the scope of significantly low or high value shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Article 60 (Principles, etc. of Appraisal)

(1) The value of property on which inheritance tax or gift tax is levied under this Act shall be the market price as of the date the inheritance commences or the date of donation (hereinafter referred to as the "date of appraisal"). In such cases, the value (excluding cases falling under Article 63 (2)) appraised by the method of appraisal stipulated in Article 63 (1) 1 (a) and (b

(2) The market price referred to in paragraph (1) shall be the price generally recognized as a transaction between many and unspecified persons, including the expropriation price, public sale price, appraisal price, and others recognized as the market price, as prescribed by Presidential Decree.

(3) Where it is difficult to compute the market price in applying paragraph (1), the value appraised by any method prescribed in Articles 61 through 65 in consideration of the type, scale, transaction status, etc. of the relevant property shall be deemed the market

(4) In applying paragraph (1), the value of donated property to be added to the value of an inherited property pursuant to Article 13 shall be the market price as of the date of donation.

Article 63 (Evaluation of Securities, etc.)

(1) Securities, etc. shall be appraised by any of the following methods:

1. Appraisal of stocks and investment shares:

(a) The average amount of stocks and equity shares of a stock-listed corporation traded on the securities market under Article 9 (13) 1 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act shall be the average of the closing price at the Korea Exchange (not based on whether there is a transaction record) published every two months before and after the evaluation base date: Provided, That in calculating the average amount, where it is inappropriate to make it as the average amount for two months before and after the evaluation base date due to reasons such as capital increase or merger, etc., it shall be the average amount of the periods calculated, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, between the two months before and after the evaluation

(b) item (a) shall apply mutatis mutandis to the stocks and equity shares prescribed by Presidential Decree among the stocks and equity shares of a corporation listed on the KOSDAQ market under Article 9 (13) 2 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act;

(c) Stocks and equity shares other than those under item (b), which are not listed in the Korea Exchange shall be appraised by the methods prescribed by Presidential Decree in consideration of the assets, profits, etc. of the relevant

(1) Enforcement Decree of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23591, Feb. 2, 2012)

Article 26 (Calculation Method, etc. of Profits Arising from Transfer of Low Price or High Price)

(1) "The lower price" in Article 35 (1) 1 of the Act means the price where the value (referring to the price assessed pursuant to Articles 60 through 66 of the Act; hereafter in this Article and Article 31, the same shall apply) calculated by subtracting the price from the market price (referring to the price assessed pursuant to Articles 60 through 66 of the Act; hereafter in this Article and Article 31, the same shall apply) of the property acquired by transfer is at least 30/100 of the market

1. The convertible bonds, etc. under Article 40 (1) of the Act;

2. Stocks and equity shares of a corporation listed in the Korea Exchange under the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act traded in the securities exchange (excluding those traded in an overtime market under Article 33 (2));

(2) The term "high value" in Article 35 (1) 2 of the Act means the value of the transferred property (excluding those falling under any subparagraph of paragraph (1)) minus the market price, in cases where the market price is 30/100 or more of the market price or the difference is 300 million won or more.

(3) "Profit prescribed by Presidential Decree" in the part other than the subparagraphs of Article 35 (1) of the Act means the difference between the price calculated under paragraphs (1) and (2) and the market price, minus the lesser of the following values:

1. Where the value obtained by subtracting the price from the market price is at least 30/100 of the market price or at least 30/100 of the market price, the value equivalent to 30/100 of the market price;

2. Three hundred million won.

(6) The term "value significantly higher in Article 35 (2) of the Act means the value of the transferred assets (excluding those falling under any subparagraph of paragraph (1)) minus the market price from the market price is 30/100 or more of the market price, if any.

(7) "Profit prescribed by Presidential Decree" in Article 35 (2) of the Act means the amount calculated by subtracting 300 million won, respectively, from the difference between the price calculated pursuant to paragraphs (5) and (6) and the market price.

Article 54 (Appraisal of Unlisted Stocks)

(1) Stocks and equity shares not listed on the Korea Exchange under Article 63 (1) 1 (c) of the Act (hereafter in this Article and Article 56-2, referred to as "non-listed stocks") shall be the weighted average value of the net asset value per share of the values appraised (hereinafter referred to as "net profit and loss value") in accordance with the following formula and the net asset value per share of 3 and 2: Provided, That in cases of a real estate-listed corporation (referring to a corporation falling under Article 158 (1) 1 (a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act), the ratio of the net value of the profit and loss per share and the net

The value per share = The weighted average amount of net profits and losses per share for the latest three years ± the interest rate determined and publicly announced by the Minister of Strategy and Finance in consideration of the circulation rate of three-year corporate bonds guaranteed by the financial institutions (hereinafter referred to as "net profit and loss exchange rate").

(2) The net asset value per share under paragraph (1) shall be the value appraised by the following formula:

The value per share = the net asset value of the corporation ± the net asset value of the corporation ± (hereinafter referred to as the “net asset value”).

(4) In cases falling under any of the following subparagraphs, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1), the net asset value under paragraph (2) shall be based on the net asset value:

2. Stocks or investment shares of a corporation prior to the commencement of business, a corporation less than three years after the commencement of business, and a corporation under suspension or closure of business.

(5) In applying paragraph (2), the total number of outstanding stocks shall be determined by the total number of outstanding stocks as of the evaluation base date.