The case holding that a person in a special relationship with him under Article 34-2 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act and Article 41 (2) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act constitutes a person in a special relationship.

If a transferee of shares is the husband's or the husband's spouse's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's spouse's relatives within the fourth degree of relationship of the transferor's spouse's relative, and thus, the transferee is a person who has special relationship due to a relationship of relationship as provided by Article 34-2 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act

Article 34-2 of the Inheritance Tax Act, Article 41 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act

Plaintiff

Gangwon-gu Director of the District Office

The disposition of imposition of 10,212,960 won and 2,042,592 of the defense tax against the plaintiff as of December 1, 1983 and the disposition of imposition of 10,212,960 won which the defendant made against the plaintiff as of December 1, 1983 shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

(1) On December 19, 1982, Nonparty 1 transferred 20,00 non-listed shares of Nonparty 2 Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Non-Party 2”) to the Plaintiff KRW 1,00,00 per share value of KRW 20,00 per share; the Plaintiff is a partner of Non-Party 3 (Death May 12, 1982) who is the deceased Non-Party 1’s husband, or Non-Party 4’s husband, who is the deceased Non-Party 3 (Death of May 12, 1982), and the transfer of shares was made by the Defendant under Article 34-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3474, Dec. 31, 1981; hereinafter “Non-Party 2”) and Article 34-2(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10667, Dec. 31, 1981; hereinafter “The above appraised value was transferred to the Plaintiff 1012.

The defendant asserts that this taxation is a legitimate disposition under each law in wartime. The plaintiff's representative is not between the above non-party 1 and the plaintiff's relative under the above law. Second, the appraisal of the value of the non-party company at the time of the transfer of the shares should be based on the market price at the time of the transfer of the shares in principle pursuant to Article 5 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, but only when it is difficult to calculate it, the appraisal price should be calculated pursuant to Article 5 (5) (b) and (c) of the same Act. In the case of the transfer of shares, there are many cases where 1,000 won per share at the time of the transfer of the shares, so the transfer price of the shares does not fall under the market price at the time of the transfer of the shares. The defendant's claim that the amount of 1,000 won per share at the time of the transfer of the shares does not fall under the market price at the time of the transfer of the shares. Third, even if the market price at the time of the transfer of the shares, the appraisal price should be calculated pursuant to Article 5 (5) 30.

(2) First of all, according to the facts that there is no dispute over the first argument of the plaintiff's first time, the plaintiff is a relative within the fourth degree of relationship of the non-party 5, who is the non-party 1's spouse (the non-party 4's spouse), who is the non-party 1's spouse (the non-party 1's husband), and is a person having a special relationship due to the relationship of relationship as provided by Article 34-2 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act and Article 41 (2) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. Even if the non-party 1's non-party 3, who is the non-party 1's husband of the above non-party 1, died before the transfer of the shares, according to the records of the evidence No. 2 (the certified copy)-2 (the non-party 1's husband), and the above vec beneficiary cannot be found to have not been reinstated after the husband's death (Article 775 (2) 1) of the Civil Act).

The following facts are revealed by the non-party 1's assertion that the non-party 2 had no dispute over the above non-party 4's establishment and the non-party 2's appraisal value per share of 0 non-party 1's 2's 2's 3's 5's 1's 5's 1's 5's 1's 5's 1's 5's 1's 5's 1's 1's 5's 1's 5's 1's 1's 6's 1's 5's 1's 1's 6's 1's 1's 5's 1's 1's 1's 5''''''''''''''''''s 1'''''''''''''s 1'''''''''s 1''''''''''''5''''''''''''''''''2'''''''''.

(3) Thus, the defendant's objection tax disposition against the plaintiff on the premise that the transfer value of the shares in this case against the non-party 1 is significantly low shall not be exempted from the revocation of the illegal disposition without examining the remaining arguments by the plaintiff's attorney. Thus, the plaintiff's objection claim is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the burden of the losing party.

Judges Lee Han-gu (Presiding Judge) and Ma-nam