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

The defendant's disposition of imposition of the corporate tax belonging to the year 2008 against the plaintiff on December 6, 2010 is revoked (the "OOOO" stated in the complaint appears to be a clerical error).

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

A. The plaintiff's status

From July 25, 2000, the plaintiff is a non-profit corporation that is operating a long-term care hospital specializing in the elderly in the O-O of the O-dong O-dong O-O of the O-dong, O-O.

(b) Contribution to real estate;

On December 24, 2008, the Plaintiff established a medical corporation BB medical foundation (hereinafter referred to as "non-party foundation") by investing an OO-O-O large of 5,726 square meters and two buildings on its ground (hereinafter referred to as "the instant real estate"), and completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant real estate to the non-party foundation on December 24, 2008.

On the other hand, the CCC appraisal corporation (hereinafter "CCC") appraised on October 24, 2008 the market price of the instant real estate and the medical equipment and landscape trees in the instant real estate as OOO members.

C. The defendant's disposition imposing corporate tax

The Defendant treated CCC’s above appraised value as the market price of the instant real estate at the time of investment by the CCC, and deemed the difference between the above appraised value and the book value of the instant real estate recorded in the Plaintiff’s account book at the time of investment as the proceeds of disposal of fixed assets and determined the Plaintiff’s corporate tax amount for 2008, and additionally imposed the corporate tax amount for 2008 on the Plaintiff on December 6, 2010 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

(d) passed through the pre-trial procedure.

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on March 3, 2011, but the appeal was dismissed on December 30, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 3 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is illegal;

A. The parties' assertion

(1) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

The Defendant issued the instant disposition that assessed CCC’s real estate at the market price of the instant real estate and assessed corporate tax. However, such CCC’s appraisal value is merely an arbitrary increase of the appraisal value in order to meet the requirements for permission to establish a non-party foundation. As such, CCC’s appraisal value of the instant real estate cannot be deemed as the reasonable market price of the instant real estate.

Rather, on August 24, 2009, a certified public appraiser newD assessed the appraisal value of the instant real estate as an OOO, and a certified public appraiser AE shows that the CCC’s appraisal value did not reflect the adequate objective exchange value in the market price appraisal conducted by the court of first instance according to the entrustment of appraisal by the court of first instance.

Ultimately, without examining whether the above appraisal value of the CCC properly reflects the objective exchange value of the real estate of this case, it is recognized as the market price as it is, and the disposition of this case imposing corporate tax is unlawful.

(2) Summary of the defendant's assertion

According to the commission of the court of first instance, the appraisal value of E, which assessed the instant real estate, cannot be deemed as the value assessed in an objective and reasonable manner. Rather, the appraisal value of CE is the value assessed in an objective and reasonable manner, and thus, the instant disposition is lawful.

Even if the appraisal value of PEE, which assessed the instant real estate at the commission of the court of first instance, can be recognized as the market price of the instant real estate, as alleged by the Plaintiff, it shall be deemed as the market price of the instant real estate pursuant to Article 49(1)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22042, Feb. 18, 2010; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”).

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

(1) Relevant legal principles

The main text of Article 60(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9916, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter referred to as the "former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act") provides that "the value of the property on which inheritance tax or gift tax is levied under this Act shall be based on the market price as of the date of commencing the inheritance or the date of donation," and Article 60(2) provides that "the market price under the provisions of paragraph (1) shall be the value which is generally recognized as being normal in the event of free transactions between many and unspecified persons and which is recognized as the market price under the conditions as prescribed

Meanwhile, Article 49(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "the amount recognized as the market price under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, such as the expropriation, public sale price, and appraisal price" shall be included in the return period of the tax base of inheritance tax or the return period of the tax base of gift tax from six months before the base date of appraisal, which includes the amount confirmed by the following provisions. The main sentence of subparagraph 1 provides that "if there is a transaction fact of the relevant property, the transaction price thereof shall be the amount; where there are two or more appraisal values appraised by a reliable appraisal institution as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance for purposes other than payment of inheritance tax and gift tax, the average value of such appraisal values shall be the average value;

In light of the language and text of Article 60(2) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the market price is not limited to those recognized as the market price under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, such as the acceptance and sale price, appraisal price, etc., and thus, each subparagraph of Article 49(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act by delegation of the said provision is merely an example of representative cases that can be seen as the market price of inherited property (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Du5098, Aug. 2

In addition, the market value means, in principle, an objective exchange value formed through a normal transaction, but this means a concept that includes an appraised value in an objective and reasonable manner. As such, the appraisal value of a reliable appraisal institution may also be deemed the market value, and the value thereof does not change even if it is based on retroactive appraisal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Du2356, Sept. 30, 2005). However, in order to deem the appraisal value as the market value as above, it should be recognized that the appraisal has been evaluated in an objective and reasonable manner (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Du6029, May 30, 2003).

Therefore, we examine whether the appraisal value of the instant real estate was appraised by an objective reasonable method.

(2) Facts of recognition

(A) On October 24, 2008, the CCC conducted each appraisal on August 24, 2009 by the FF appraiser’s office (hereinafter “FF appraiser’s office”) and each of the said appraisal by CCC and FF appraisal was conducted by newD, a single appraiser. Meanwhile, at the request of the court of first instance, the CEE of the GG appraiser’s office (hereinafter “GG appraisal”) conducted the appraisal on January 10, 2013.

(B) If the contents of the above detailed appraisal report are summary and comprehensive, it is as follows:

CCC (NewDD)

F. F.D. F.D.

GG Appraisal (EE)

Date of preparing an assessment report;

October 24, 2008

August 24, 2009

January 10, 2013

Record date of evaluation;

October 16, 2008

August 21, 2009

December 12, 2008

Evaluation Purpose

Purpose of asset inspection

Security Objectives

Entrustment of appraisal to the court of first instance;

Evaluation Method

Land:

Application of the Methods of Ratification Evaluation

- Comparison Standard : OOO-O large 1,379 square meters

- Assessment line: OO-O units, O-O units, O-O units at O-O units;

- For CCC

Application of the Methods of Ratification Evaluation

- Comparison Standard : OOO-O large 1,379 square meters

- Assessment Line: O-O units of O-O units of O-O, O-O units of O-O, O-O units of O-O, O-O units of O-O, O-O units of O-O units of the instant land, among four existing appraisal and assessment of the instant land, the Daejeon District Court Decision 2004 Ma16968, Daejeon District Court Decision 2007 Mata6962 of Daejeon District Court Decision 2007 Mata62 of the Daejeon District Court Decision 2007 Mata662 of the auction appraisal of the instant land

Buildings and interior equipment

- Application of the method of diversified evaluation

- The unit price of the building has been determined by applying the residual value rate (80%) calculated based on the economic content year (50 years) and the elapsed (10 years) of the building;

- Evaluation of the interior equipment, taking into account the costs associated with the scale and the costs paid as advanced up to now, (evaluation separately from the value of the building);

- Application of the method of diversified evaluation

- The calculation of re-purchasing cost by applying the standard unit price on the unit price table for new construction of a building by the Korea Appraisal Board (2008), taking into account the interior of the building (the hospital).

- The unit price of the building has been determined by applying the residual value rate (78%) based on the economic content annual number (50 years) and the elapsed number (11 years);

- It shall be evaluated by cost method, and the observation method shall be employed concurrently;

- applying the standard unit price on the table of the unit price for building construction of a building by the Korea Appraisal Board (2008), the unit price for the building has been determined by applying the residual value rate (80%) calculated based on economic content (50 years) and 10 years (10 years).

- The term "tegrative equipment" refers to the alteration of the use of a long-term care hospital for the elderly, so it is unnecessary to separately evaluate the facility as it is reflected in the purpose of the hospital in calculating the re-financing cost (including the building)

Title :

-Calculation of the prices of trees by comprehensively taking into account species, receipt, management conditions, availability of commercialization, and other factors related to price formation;

-be included in the appraisal of trees and turfs, etc. born in the land, except for landscaping existing in the land;

- Unevaluation

-assessment in comprehensive consideration of the species, quantities, specifications, shapes, overall phenomena, management conditions, etc. of trees;

- Exclusion from assessment of natural trees;

Medical equipment

- Evaluation by applying the actual cost of the purchase of equipment;

- Unevaluation

- Awarding the CCC appraisal value

Values

Land:

OOO

OOO

OOO

Buildings (including interior)

OOO

-

OOO

Title :

OOO

-

OOO

Medical equipment

OOO

OOO

OOO

Total

OOO

OOO

OOO

[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence 16, Eul evidence 2, and 3, witness of the first instance court, witness of new evidence of the first instance court, the result of the market price appraisal commission of the court of first instance, the purport of the whole pleadings

(3) As to the adequacy of each appraisal value of the instant real estate

(A) First, we examine whether the appraisal value of the CCC (newD) can be seen as the market price of the instant real estate.

In addition to the aforementioned facts and the purport of the entire arguments, the following circumstances can be acknowledged by adding the aforementioned facts and the purport of the arguments, namely, ① ACC and FF appraisal were conducted by DaD, a uniform appraiser, and there was no change in time, and there is a big difference in the results of the assessment. ② In particular, even though the appraisal value of land is identical in both the comparative standards and precedents for appraisal, there is a difference in the correction rate based on other factors without any special explanation, the appraisal rate has been reduced from OOO(20% compared to the initial appraisal value) by OOO(20%). ③ New DaD testified testified to the effect that, in the event that the court of first instance attends as a witness for the purpose of the verification of assets, it is difficult to reasonably explain that the appraisal value has occurred, rather than the appraisal for the purpose of the inspection of assets, ④ It appears that the appraisal price of the building was calculated based on the standard appraisal price of the Plaintiff at the request of OO for the purpose of the appraisal.

(B) Next, we examine whether the appraisal value of the FD and GG Appraisal (ReD) can be seen as the market price of the instant real estate.

In a case where the appraisal by multiple appraisal institutions has no illegality in the appraisal methods and there is a difference in the appraisal results due to a somewhat different relationship with respect to the appraisal, in view of the remaining factors for price assessment except for the category of goods and the category of goods, it is within the discretion of a fact-finding court to take one of the appraisal as long as there is no evidence to acknowledge that any error exists in the description of the category of goods and the category of goods of the appraisal (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du4679, Jan. 28, 2005).

On the other hand, in calculating the appraisal value of land, the GG appraisal (EE) is deemed to have been assessed in an objective and reasonable manner, taking into account the following circumstances, i.e., the FG appraisal (FD)’s overall purpose of pleading as well as the following circumstances: (a) the FG appraisal (EE)’s terms and conditions concerning individual factors are subdivided into street conditions, access conditions, environmental conditions, and other conditions; and (b) the relationship between each item’s comparative standard terms and conditions are calculated by analyzing in detail; (c) the appraisal rate is calculated by taking into account the gap rate using the appraisal method and the difference between the transaction price level and the difference between the appraisal price level; (b) the GG appraisal (EE)’s appraisal value is deemed to have been assessed in a more objective and reasonable manner than the market price of the building at the time of the instant appraisal (five stories) based on the standard unit price on the new construction price table of the building; and (d) the appraisal price at the time of application of the GG appraisal (EG appraisal (EE) the average price at the time of the building at the present price).

(4) Sub-determination

Therefore, it is reasonable to view the market value of the instant real estate as the OOO of the appraised value assessed by GG Appraisal’s GaE as above. From the contrary perspective, the Defendant’s disposition that imposed corporate tax on the Plaintiff by deeming CCC (newD) as the market price at the time of contribution of the instant real estate as the market price at the time of contribution of the instant real estate was unlawful.

Furthermore, inasmuch as the appraisal value of the GG Appraisal (EE) is recognized as the market price of the instant real estate, the average of the GG Appraisal (EE) appraisal value and the CCC (NewD) appraisal value cannot be deemed as the market price of the instant real estate. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just and it is dismissed on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.