Seoul Administrative Court 2012Guhap34228 (29 March 2013)

It is legitimate to calculate the appraised value per share before the capital increase based on the supplementary evaluation methods based on the balance sheet for the settlement of accounts.

It is reasonable to see that the balance sheet for the settlement of accounts close to the day immediately before the payment date of the stock price reflects the net asset value of the non-party company. Therefore, it is legitimate to calculate the assessment value per share before the capital increase based on the supplementary evaluation method.

Article 63 (Appraisal of Securities, etc.)

2013Nu13176 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

jAA

Head of the District Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Guhap34228 decided March 29, 2013

September 12, 2013

October 10, 2013

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. On December 2, 201, the defendant revoked the imposition of an OOO (including additional taxes) of gift tax against the plaintiff on December 2, 2011.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is that the second and fifth OOO officers of the second and fifth 5th OOOO officers of the judgment of the court of first instance are dismissed, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment of the plaintiff to the judgment of the new argument in the appellate court as follows. Thus, this is cited in accordance with Article 8(2

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff asserts that, if the Defendant assessed the value of the shares of the non-party company at the time of imposing gift tax on October 1, 2009 on the next B, and based on this, if it first assessed the value of the shares of the non-party company to the non-party company and imposed gift tax on the non-B from the beginning, the additional tax was not imposed on the period thereafter until the date of the instant disposition. Thus, the part imposing penalty tax on the above period

On the other hand, in order to facilitate the exercise of taxation right and the realization of tax claims, additional tax under tax law is imposed in accordance with administrative sanctions imposed in accordance with the provisions of individual tax law in cases where a taxpayer violates various obligations, such as reporting, payment, etc. as prescribed by the law without justifiable grounds, and thus, it is unreasonable for the taxpayer to be aware of such obligations, and there is a circumstance where it is unreasonable for the taxpayer to be reasonably present or to expect the party to fulfill the obligations, and there is a justifiable reason that it is unreasonable for the taxpayer to be unaware of such obligations, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du4089, Apr. 15, 2005). As long as the Plaintiff neglected to report and pay gift tax in this case, the imposition of additional tax on the period until the date of the disposition in this case is lawful, and the circumstance alleged by the Plaintiff alone does not constitute a case where there is a justifiable reason not attributable to the Plaintiff’s above negligence, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is groundless.