No ordinary transaction amount that properly reflects the exchange value shall be deemed to be a normal transaction amount.

Unless there are special circumstances, it is difficult to view that the transaction value is a price formed by normal transactions that reflects the objective exchange value in light of the fact that the transaction value cannot be deemed free transaction between many and unspecified persons, the fact that the non-party company determines all matters related to the acquisition of stocks, the transaction price, and the acquisition of stocks such as

2012Guhap27534 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

HongAAA and four other persons.

Four other members of the Ansan Tax Office

March 19, 2013

April 18, 2013

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

On December 5, 201, the head of Ansan Tax Office revoked the imposition of KRW 000 as gift tax on Plaintiff HongAA, and KRW 0090 as gift tax on Plaintiff ParkB on December 5, 201, and KRW 000 as gift tax on Plaintiff Park Young-dong Tax Office on December 5, 201 by the head of Sung-dong Tax Office, and KRW 000 as gift tax on Plaintiff Hong-dong Tax Office on December 5, 201, and KRW 000 as gift tax on April 7, 2008 and KRW 00 as gift tax on August 22, 2008, and KRW 00 as gift tax on Plaintiff Hong-dong Tax Office on December 5, 2011, respectively.

1. Details of the disposition;

(a) EEE Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “EEE”) is an unlisted corporation established on May 21, 1959 for the purpose of Myeongro manufacturing, etc., and the total number of issued stocks as of the end of 2008 is 90,000 won (e.g. 00 won).

B. From 2007 to 2008, the plaintiffs acquired shares of the non-party company at KRW 145,605 per share (hereinafter "the shares of this case") as listed below. "C. The defendant assessed that the shares of this case fall under the case where it is difficult to calculate the market price at the time of acquisition, and assessed shares at the price under Article 60 and 63 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9269, Dec. 26, 2008; hereinafter "former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act") and Article 54 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21214, Dec. 31, 2008; hereinafter "former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act") at the price below 200 won per share and 200 won per share under the supplementary method of assessment under Article 54 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (hereinafter "the plaintiff's 2013.

6.13. was dismissed.

[Based on recognition] Items A and 3 (in case of household number, including unit number, hereinafter the same shall apply), and Eul 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

It is very difficult for the Plaintiffs to accurately assess the objective value of the instant shares as unlisted stocks, and due to the characteristics of unlisted stocks. In such a situation, the Plaintiffs acquired the instant shares at a reasonable price determined by free will at the time from those who are deprived of the transfer of the instant shares. The price for which the Plaintiffs acquired the instant shares was reasonably determined by taking into account the various circumstances of the transferor and transferee, and thus, is the market price of the instant shares. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ acquisition of the instant shares is a normal transaction and does not fall under Article 35(2) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act.

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Facts of recognition

1) The relationship between the Parties

Plaintiff HongD, the transferee of the instant shares, is the executive of Nonparty Company, and Plaintiff ParkB1 0EE is the executive of Nonparty Company, and Plaintiff HongAAAA, and the headCC is the university line of HongO type. On the other hand, Lee Young-il, the transferor of the instant shares, is the representative of the OOO, the non-party affiliate company, and KimOO, and the OO is the heir of Kim II of the non-party company's joint business starters, and the OO, the OO, and the OO is the heir (spouse) of the non-party company's retired executive of the non-party company, and the O is the heir of the OOO as the retired executive of the non-party company (spouse).

2) Details of the transfer of the instant shares

A) In order to transfer the shares of the non-party company inherited after the husband who was an executive officer of the non-party company died, the newO asked on the part of the non-party company to transfer the shares of the non-party company inherited, and transferred the price at the non-party company’s accounting team to 00 won per share. The newO did not know that the transferee was the non-party company at the time of transfer.

B) To transfer the shares of the non-party company, YO inquiredd the non-party company on the part of the non-party company, and in the accounting team of the non-party company, the non-party company could transfer the shares of the non-party company to KRW 000 per share. The non-party company did not know that the non-party company was bound to transfer the shares of the non-party company at the price presented by the non-party company, and that the transferee did not know

C) The RedO received a request from the RedO to take over the shares of the non-party company from the head of the OO scholarship association (the second shareholder of the non-party company). It was determined that it is inappropriate to hold the shares of the non-party company while holding the president of the OO scholarship association as the foundation company, and requested the non-party company to take over the shares of the non-party company.

D) EO inquireds on the part of the non-party company in order to transfer the non-party company’s shares, and the non-party company’s accounting team could transfer 000 won per share to anyone at the time of transfer. The non-party company’s shares were transferred to anyone at the time of transfer. On the other hand, the HongAAAA and the headCC heards that the non-party company’s shares will be 00 won per share because the non-party company’s shares would be 00 won or more per share.

E) In order to transfer the shares of the non-party company, KimO made inquiries on the part of the non-party company in order to transfer the shares of the non-party company, and in the accounting team of the non-party company, the amount of par value is KRW 000,000, and the actual price is also KRW 000. Meanwhile, in consideration of the 0E and ParkB as the management planning, business and marketing director of the non-party company as well as the officer in charge of technology at the time of the non-party company, the non-party company's shares were acquired by taking over the non-party company's shares, considering the difference between the technical number of the non-party company and the personal guidance,

F) The executive officers of the non-party company have normally acquired the shares of the non-party company when the executive officers were employed, and all of the reports on capital gains tax on the shares of this case were filed in

3) From 2000 to 2006, the trading details of the shares of the non-party company are as follows.

(Omission of Transaction)

4) The details of assets and profits and losses of the non-party company from 2006 to 2009 are as follows (unit: cost of detention).

(Contents omitted)

[Based on Recognition] 2, 3, and 3, and 4, as the whole, and the purport of the whole pleading

D. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

Article 35(2) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that, where property is acquired or transferred between persons other than those having a special relationship without justifiable grounds, only where such property is acquired or transferred by transfer at a remarkably lower price than the market price or at a remarkably higher price, an amount equivalent to the profits prescribed by the Presidential Decree shall be presumed as the value of property donated to the person who has acquired such profits as a result of the donation. According to Article 60(2) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, it means the value recognized as normal if a transaction takes place freely between many and unspecified persons, i.e., the objective exchange price formed through a normal transaction. Thus, even if a transactional example takes place, it cannot be deemed as a price formed by a normal transaction, and the market price is difficult to calculate if the transaction price is the subject of gift tax calculated based on Article 60(1)5 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act or 60(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 204Du271, May 13, 2004).

2) In full view of the facts as seen earlier and the purport of the entire arguments as to the instant case, the following circumstances are considered to have been comprehensively taken over the instant shares at a price significantly lower than the market price without any justifiable reason in light of transaction practices. Therefore, the instant disposition based on the premise is lawful, and the Plaintiffs’ assertion to this effect is without merit.

A) Unless there are special circumstances, the instant shares are unlisted stocks, so it cannot be deemed that free transactions took place between many and unspecified persons, barring special circumstances, and the non-party company that is not the transferee, determined all matters related to the acquisition of the instant shares, such as the transferor of the instant shares, transaction price, and the transferee of the shares (see, e.g., that the non-party company president, reported the acquisition of the instant shares through the Non-party company accounting team and designated the transferee of the shares as its own son, paper, and executive officers). The transferor of the instant shares did not make any effort to evaluate the appropriate value of the non-party company or to determine the legitimate price through substantial price negotiations by providing accurate and objective accounting data to the reliable accounting corporation, etc., and it is difficult to view that the Plaintiffs transferred the instant shares as determined by the non-party company, and the Plaintiffs acquired the instant shares through the recommendation of the non-party company president, the executive officers, and that the acquisition price was low compared to the value of the non-party company’s shares.

(B) Article 49(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "if there is a fact of trading the pertinent property during the period of 3 months before or after the base date of appraisal (the base date of appraisal), the transaction value shall be recognized as the market price." As seen above, the fact of trading the shares of the non-party company from 2000 to 2006, but this is not a transaction made within 3 months before or after the acquisition of the shares of this case, so the transaction value cannot be recognized as the market price of the shares of this case (or, it is difficult to view that the shares of this case was formed through a normal transaction with HongA and executives of the non-party company from 200 to 200, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, 300, 300, 300, 300, 300, 300, 300.

3. Conclusion

All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed because they are without merit.