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

The court's explanation on the instant case is based on No. 2 of the judgment of the first instance court.

Inasmuch as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the entry of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition.

Article 8 (2) of this Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be cited as it is.

2. Parts which are dismissed or added in the judgment of the first instance; and

(a) Of the pages 2, the term "AA" in Part 7 is charged to "A" as "Aa", and the third and fifth of the pages 4;

Each "leB" of the 20th PapB is regarded as "leb".

(b)forth page 8, the following shall be added to:

The legislative intent of Article 35(2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is the transaction for the benefit of the other party to the transaction.

In fact, the profit equivalent to the difference between the price and the market by abnormal methods that manipulate the price.

gift tax shall be levied on the profits acquired by the other party to the transaction when such transfer is made free of charge.

By doing so, it is trying to cope with and promote the fairness of taxation.

In transactions between persons without any relationship, in general, the interests of each other are not in conflict;

the difference between the price and the market price shall be donated to the other party to the transaction on the sole basis of the difference.

Therefore, Article 35(2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act does not apply to the transaction between persons with a special relationship.

In addition, the taxation requirement is added to the transaction between unrelated parties. In full view of these points, it is reasonable to deem that there is a justifiable reason to believe that the transaction party who acquired property at a low price has a reasonable reason to believe the transaction price at a reasonable price reflecting the objective exchange value, as well as that there is a justifiable reason in light of the transaction practice under Article 35(2) of the Act even if the transferor does not have any such reason, even if there is an objective reason not to deem the transfer of property at a reasonable price from a reasonable economic perspective (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Du5081, Aug. 23, 2013). If the tax authority is a reasonable economy, it may prove that there is no “justifiable reason in light of the transaction practice” by submitting data on objective circumstances, etc. that the transaction party would not have traded under such conditions at the time of the transaction, and if such circumstances are proven to the extent that it is reasonable, there is a need to prove that the taxpayer is a normal trade (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Du4539, Apr. 24, 2015). 2015.

(c)section 8, 19 to 21, "(b)", and 4, are as follows:

If a tax office imposes inheritance tax on a heir of MaMa who died on April 9, 2008.

At that time, the value of z stocks, an inherited property, based on the successful bid price, was assessed, but this was so assessed.

The sole fact that the bid price in each of the above auction procedures can not be deemed as the market price recognized as a public figure.

tax authority failed to disclose the abnormal nature of the auction transaction at the time of imposing inheritance tax;

(4) The transfer value of the sale as of June 19, 2009 was initially and voluntarily paid gift tax imposed on the ground of low-price transfer by the Plaintiff, the transferee, in that the transfer value of each sale as of December 14, 2010 and November 28, 201, included the meaning of audit of personal pro rata or business cooperation, and thus, the transfer value of the sale as of December 16, 2010 was calculated at low price, as of December 16, 2010, inasmuch as the transfer value of each sale as of December 16, 2010, was calculated at low price by Dac’s own effort to determine a legitimate transfer price, the transfer value of the shares as of December 16, 2010, as of the transfer of the shares in this case.

In that shares are transferred to the PP who is his/her child according to catch, the reason for the transfer of the PP is that the PP is the reason for such transfer.

Although a lawsuit was filed to seek the revocation of the gift tax imposition disposition that was made on September 24, 2015, the Seoul Administrative Court was dismissed on September 24, 2015 (2015Guhap51897), and on April 27, 2016 (2015Nu61681), which was revoked by the Seoul High Court (2015Nu61681).

The value of all cases shall not be deemed to reflect the objective exchange value of the shares of this case.

"Ak, 5"

(d)for the purposes of paragraphs 4 through 8 of the 9th page, the phrase "the plaintiff ....... are in law" is as follows:

There is no transaction example that properly reflects the objective exchange value with respect to the shares of this case.

J. The value of the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the shares of this case is formed through general and normal transactions.

It is difficult to view that the market price is reflected in the objective exchange value, and in any other way the market price is calculated.

Since it is reasonable to see that the Defendant’s supplementary evaluation methods under the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act are difficult, the Defendant’s objection is made

The calculation of the value of the shares in this case is lawful, and according to this, the plaintiff is the market price of the shares.

"The acquisition by transfer at a significantly lower price shall be deemed to have been made."

E. The number of pages 9, 14, and 16, stated in the following:

A member of a political party and a member of a political party, a member of a political party, has been under financial pressure, or c has increased its equity interest.

in the process of acquiring the shares of z at a lower price from other founders and members.

Even if the Plaintiff’s economic interest accrued to the Plaintiff, the transfer of the instant shares is normal.

Inasmuch as there are no special circumstances to be seen earlier, the transfer price of the instant shares cannot be said to have been determined.

Article 35(2) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that the amount shall be KRW 46,003 per share, and it is reasonable to deem that there is no "justifiable reason in light of the practice of transaction".

3. Conclusion

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

It is so decided as per Disposition.