Plaintiff (Law Firm Choe, Attorneys Jeong Jae-ro et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Deputy Director of the Tax Office

July 13, 2017

Incheon District Court Decision 2015Guhap53088 Decided January 12, 2017

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The imposition of gift tax of KRW 85,341,850 (including additional tax) on January 4, 2016 by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on January 4, 2016 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, except for the dismissal or addition of a part of the following, and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article

○ The third page of the first instance judgment “305,991 won” in the first instance judgment shall be deemed “305,991 won per share.”

○○ In the first instance judgment, “B 9-1 to 3” is deemed to read “B 9 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply)”.

In the 8th instance judgment of the first instance court, the second instance “not deemed the market price” cannot be seen as “(the same shall apply even if this case’s inquiry results about the lender accounting corporation were neglected).”

Part 9 of the judgment of the first instance court, the phrase “A 6, A12, and A14” in Part 13 is deemed to read “A 6, 12, 14, and 22” and “the results of fact-finding with respect to A 6, A 12, 14, and 22 corporation of this court”.

Article 15 and 16 of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows: “No obvious material exists to deem that the sale of a vehicle rental business was confirmed objectively at the time of the evaluation.”

【Around November 8, 2012, at the intra-company bulletin board, it was publicly announced that the Plaintiff would use the vehicle rental service only until September 2013 to the employees of the strings using the vehicle rental service provided by the instant company. Around November 2012, 2012, the strings notified the instant company representative director of the fact that the strings decided to suspend the use of the vehicle rental service verbally. However, it is insufficient to view that the sales of the instant company’s vehicle rental business became objectively final and conclusive at the time of the instant stock appraisal by the lender accounting corporation.

2. Conclusion

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

Justices Cho Jong-dae (Presiding Justice)