Seoul High Court 2007Nu20524 ( December 26, 2007)

Whether the market price is recognized as "in case where the difference is to be compensated when the amount of stocks falls short of the fixed price" when evaluating the value of stocks.

Even if the donor was to compensate for the difference in the case of stock donation to the subcontractor and creditor financial institutions, the donor's value cannot be viewed as an objective exchange value because it is a special transaction, such as compensating for damages to the subcontractor, etc.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

쇠지지300 쇠지지 3000 쇠지지지지지지 AL Bank

쇠지지300 쇠지지지지 3000 지지지지 3000 BB Head of tax office

Article 300 gross u3000 expiration u3000 expiration u3000 expiration u3000 Seoul High Court Decision 2007Nu20524 decided December 26, 2007

쇠은은 개은은 개은은은 3000 개은은은 3000 아은은은이 이 3000 개이 이 300 개이 30010.

44 44 44 44 44 45 44 444 64 44

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

쇠鹬 쇠鹬 3000 쇠鹬 3000

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

A. In a case where a tax official calculates the amount of income and calculates the amount of income for each business year of a corporation and accordingly determines the tax base accordingly is not an administrative disposition that is subject to appeal litigation, and thus, if there were errors in the determination, it may be asserted in the procedure of disputing the validity of the taxation disposition accordingly (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du2652, Nov. 26, 2002

B. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on August 24, 199, thisS decided to donate 3,50,000 shares issued by the creditor financial institutions ofCC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "CCCo."), including the plaintiff on August 24, 199, and accordingly, donated 483,84 shares to the plaintiff on June 29, 200. The plaintiff reported corporate tax for 200 years belonging to 291,000 won and calculated the balance of the above shares as 3,075,910,475,161 won. However, the defendant did not request correction of the tax base of this case on December 13, 2004 after deducting 70,000 won per share of the above shares, and then notified the plaintiff of the decision of correction of the tax base of this case on December 13, 2008, the plaintiff made a request for correction of the tax base of this case to 3,500,000 won.

In the same purport, the court below is just in rejecting the defendant's assertion that there was a lack of dispute as an administrative disposition with respect to the determination of the tax base of this case, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to the administrative disposition

2. On the second ground for appeal

원심은, HH 주식회사가 2000. 5. 22. 주식회사 @@에 DD생명 주식 25만 주를 1주당 28만 원에 양도하고 KK회계법인이 2000. 9. 30. MM채권단의 공적자금 산정을 위한 실사보고서에서 DD생명 주식을 1주당 291,000원으로 평가한 점, 이SS가 CC자동차의 협력업체 및 퇴직 임직원 등에게 1주당 70만 원의 처분대금 보장을 조건으로 DD생명 주식을 증여하고 CC그룹 계열사가 대부분의 출자자인 ☆☆보증제4차유동화전문 유한회사와 ☆☆보증보험 주식회사 사이에 DD생명 주식을 1주당 70만 원에 거래한 일이 있다고 하더라도 이는 CC자동차와 관련한 협력업체 등의 손해를 배상하거나 CC자동차의 사채 대지급금 재원을 마련하기 위한 특수한 거래이어서 그 거래가격이 객관적 교환가치를 적정하게 반영한 것이라고 보기는 어려운 점, 이SS가 CC자동차의 채권금융기관에 DD생명 주식의 처분 결과 그 처분대금이 1주당 70만 원에 미치지 못할 경우 이를 보전하여 주기로 하였다고 하여 그것만으로 그 시가미달금액이 원고에게 귀속되었다고 할 수 없는 점 등을 종합하면, 원고가 위에서 본 바와 같이 취득한 DD생명 주식의 1주당 가액이 70만 원임을 전제로 하는 이 사건 처분은 위법하다고 판단하였는바, 이러한 원심의 판단은 관계 법령과 기록에 비추어 정당하고, 거기에 주장하는 바와 같은 자산수증이익의 익금귀속시기 등에 관한 법리오해 등의 위법이 없다.

3. Conclusion

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 on the bench.