증여세부과처분취소
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments to the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Following the decision of the first instance court No. 4, No. 11, which stated that the following is added, and the plaintiffs still received dividends while managing the shares of this case, the plaintiffs asserted that the shares of this case are not actually transferred to the plaintiffs.
However, it is generally possible to receive dividends in the course of managing the shares owned by the Plaintiffs, who are a minor, in fact, inasmuch as such circumstances exist, the substance of the transfer of the shares in this case against the Plaintiffs cannot be denied on the ground that there is such circumstance.
Then, in light of the Supreme Court Decision 92Nu17174 Decided July 27, 1993, the plaintiffs asserted that the above transaction of E, which was made in the year 2012, can be seen as a sale case recognized as the market price according to Article 49(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act, in light of the Supreme Court Decision 92Nu17174 Decided July 27, 1993.
However, the foregoing judgment is different from the instant case where Article 49(1)1(b) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23591, Feb. 2, 2012; Presidential Decree No. 23591, Feb. 2, 2012; Presidential Decree No. 23591, supra; Presidential Decree No. 23590, “where the value of the transaction, etc. with a person in a special relationship is objectively unreasonable” is subject to the application of the explicit reason for exclusion from market price recognition, such as Article 49(1)1(b) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance and Gift
The plaintiffs are above.