Seoul High Court 2010Nu32282 (Law No. 204, 2011)

National Tax Service Review Donation 2009-0093 (2010.02.09)

It is difficult to deem that the sales price was determined below the objective exchange value.

It is insufficient to prove that the sales price per share of the lower court did not properly reflect the objective exchange value, and thus, the supplementary evaluation methods are bound to be followed. The grounds for the lower court to have failed to exhaust all necessary deliberations or exceeded the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence are not acknowledged, as alleged in the grounds for appeal.

2011Du1181 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

HongAA. 2 other

Head of the District Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 2010Nu32282 Decided April 20, 201

November 29, 2012

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

However, according to the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9916, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), if the acquisition value of property is considerably lower than the market price, the market price shall be the value which is ordinarily recognized if it is freely traded among many and unspecified persons, and if it is difficult to calculate the market price, the price shall be determined based on the supplementary method taking into account the type, size, transaction circumstances, etc. of the pertinent property (Article 60). Therefore, even in the case of unlisted stocks, if there is a sale room which appropriately reflects the objective exchange value of the pertinent property, the price shall be deemed as the market price, and if it can be deemed that the pertinent transaction is made by the general and normal method and the exchange value at the time of acquisition of the pertinent property is not considered as the market price. Therefore, the lower court determined that the Plaintiffs’ acquisition and sale value at the time of acquisition of the pertinent property cannot be deemed as the market price based on the aforementioned supplementary method, and thus, it is difficult for the lower court to find that there is no reasonable market price.