해외 비상장법인의 주식평가시 상증법에서 정한 보충적 평가방법이 부적당하지 않다는 입증이 부족한 바 본 처분은 위법함[국패]
Seoul High Court-2013-Nu-52522 (Law No. 19, 2014)
The early high-2012-China-1884
This disposition is unlawful because it is insufficient to prove that the supplementary assessment method stipulated in the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is not inappropriate in the event of the stock appraisal of an overseas unlisted corporation.
When calculating the value of overseas non-listed stocks issued by the Plaintiff, it is illegal to calculate the value of the stock as a supplementary assessment method due to lack of evidence to support that it is inappropriate to apply the supplementary assessment method under Article 54 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act.
Article 54 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act / [Appraisal of Non-listed Stocks]
Supreme Court-2014-Du-4326
○○
○ Head of tax office
Seoul High Court-2013-Nu-52522 ( September 19, 2014)
February 12, 2015
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
The court below held that the defendant's evaluation of the value per share of Y0 shares of a non-listed corporation in a foreign country based on the supplementary evaluation method is unlawful on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to find that it is not inappropriate to evaluate the shares of a non-listed corporation as a Hong Kong subsidiary in A00, based on the supplementary evaluation method, only when it is not appropriate to apply the supplementary evaluation method stipulated in Article 54 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20621, Feb. 22, 2008).
Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the application of supplementary evaluation
The remaining grounds of appeal are with regard to the lower court’s additional determination, so long as the lower court’s determination that the Defendant’s evaluation of Y0○○ Stocks was unlawful is justifiable, the legitimacy of the assertion cannot affect the conclusion of the judgment, and thus, it cannot be accepted without the need for separate determination
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.