Suwon District Court-2014-Guhap-50218 (No. 12, 2015)

Evaluation according to supplementary evaluation methods is legitimate because there is no example of transaction that reflects objective exchange values.

The acquisition price of shares at the time of capital increase is difficult to be considered as the market price reflecting the objective exchange value formed by the general and normal transaction, and there is no other evidence to prove the market price, so it is legitimate to calculate the price of the shares in this

Article 60 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

Seoul High Court 2015Nu44044 Disposition Revocation of Imposition of Gift Tax

O KimO

OO Head of the tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2014Guhap50218 Decided May 12, 2015

November 19, 2015

December 10, 2015

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. On January 7, 2013, the defendant revoked each disposition of the gift tax of the plaintiff, the OO, the OO, the OO, the OO, the OO, the OO, the OO, the OO, the OO, the OO, and the OO.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, and it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the addition of the judgment on the plaintiff's assertion at the appellate court as follows. Thus, it is accepted by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Parts used for cutting.

"OO, OO, orOO" of the third place of action shall be deleted.

○ The third 6th page " January 11, 2013" means " January 7, 2013";

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that since a significant portion of the sales of the company of this case was processed, the supplementary evaluation methods of the shares of this case based on the income statement containing such processing sales are not reflected in the appropriate market price.

According to the evidence evidence Nos. 15 and 16, the company of this case and the company of this case are subject to criminal punishment for embezzlement by raising funds from around May 2007 to around September 2013 by paying off the transaction amount to be paid by the representative director of the company of OOOOO, financial directors KimO, and executive directors from around May 2007 to receiving a refund of the difference between the actual price and the actual price. The company of this case includes the other party to the transaction of OOOO, but the company of this case is not subject to criminal punishment for embezzlement. However, the processed shares of this case including OOOO, OO, OO, OO, O, 209, OO, 201, O, 207, O, 201, 207, O, 300, 2000, 201, 2000, 207, 2004.

The plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

If so, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.