Evaluation of stocks, etc. of listed corporations under Article 53 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

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

The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) deleted "the imposition of gift tax was made as reported" under Section 2 under Section 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for addition or dismissal as follows, this Court shall accept it in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

A. Additional parts

○ On the 6th judgment of the first instance court, "20", "29,31, 32, 33" shall be added.

○ At the bottom of Part 7 of the first instance judgment, the following additions from Part 5:

④ In light of the fact that Article 2(4) and Article 40(1)2(a) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act are naturally applicable even in cases where a corporation issues bonds with warrants for financing, the circumstance that BB was in an inevitable situation at the time of the issuance of the instant bonds with warrants that the said provision was essential for financing is not any obstacle to the application of the said provision.

7) Article 40(1)2 (a) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides for regulating the acquisition of a conversion right or preemptive right to new stocks and the acquisition of profits equivalent to the difference between the market price of stocks and the acquisition price of stocks in an alternative manner, and where such profits exist, regardless of whether such profits are the result from the acquisition of preemptive right to new stocks to the time when the preemptive right is exercised to the time when the risk of stock price fluctuations is exercised. Therefore, the issue of whether the Plaintiff, for three years after the acquisition of the preemptive right of this case, took the risk of stock price fluctuations or obtained profits equivalent to the difference between the market price of stocks and the acquisition price of new medicines and pharmaceutical industry is not to be considered

○ On the 9th sentence of the first instance court, the following additions

With respect to the interpretation of the above provision, the supplementary method of assessment regardless of whether the market price was properly reflected and whether the transaction was made normally due to the reasons such as business losses for the recent four consecutive business years, such as financial poorness, etc.

In assessing shares, it may cause distortions to the market price of shares as well as language and text.

In the interpretation of Article 16-2(2) of the Enforcement Rule, it shall not be deemed that Article 16-2(2) of the same Enforcement Rule shall apply only to cases where an item of management is designated as an item of management due to formal and procedural reasons, such as breach of duty of disclosure, and where an appropriate corporate value is reflected in the market price and a normal transaction is made, it shall be interpreted that it shall also apply to cases where an item of management is designated as an item of management due to reasons other than that. The Plaintiff’s assertion is rejected on the premise that Article

B. Parts in height

○ Rule 10 No. 5 of the first instance court's ruling No. 10 of the fifth instance court's ruling is followed by Article 2 of the Constitution.

○ up to the 6th instance judgment of the first instance court, up to the 12th “Plaintiff” to the 15th “as follows.”

Although the Plaintiff took the form of transaction by acquiring the instant preemptive right issued by BB from the △ Securities, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff was making a round-up transaction without any difference with the Plaintiff’s direct acquisition of the instant preemptive right from BB having a special relationship with the instant preemptive right. Therefore, the Plaintiff unfairly avoided or reduces the gift tax when the Plaintiff directly acquired the instant preemptive right from BB through the indirect method of acquiring the instant preemptive right through the △ Securities, which is the third party. Thus, Article 40(1)3 and 2(a) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act applies to the profits accruing from the conversion of the instant preemptive right to shares.

○ In the 8th judgment of the first instance court, the first instance court held that the 7th judgment "preemptive rights" shall be held as "preemptive rights".

○ At the bottom of the 8th judgment of the first instance court, the 4th class “stocks” shall be read as “stocks”.

○ Up to the 9th sentence of the first instance court's first instance court's 9th to the 9th to the 9th sentence's :

On the other hand, on June 26, 2012, prior to the Plaintiff’s exercise of the instant preemptive right, CCCB

As the largest shareholder is participating in capital increase with consideration, CCC's management participation in BB becomes final and conclusive.

BB has become out of the delisting risk, as seen earlier, and No. 11,23

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statement Nos. 27, the fact that the largest shareholder of BB was changed from BH to CCC on August 17, 2012, and that BB sold the rights of patent rights, etc. held on August 29, 2012 to CCC to ○○○;

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.