Incheon District Court 2007Guu4135 (Law No. 28, 2008)

Review Corporation 2007-0016 (Law No. 13, 2007)

Whether there are justifiable grounds for the transfer of shares at a low price

It is difficult to see that there is a fixed reason for the Plaintiffs to transfer their shares at a low price solely on the grounds alleged by the Plaintiff, such as the fact that financial expenses continuously incurred without incurring sales from the construction plan of golf business and the decrease in the value of shares.

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

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

피고 북인천세무서장이 2006. 11. 1. 원고 울트라산업개발 주식회사에 대하여 한 2003년 귀속 법인세 122,190,820원, 같은 날 원고 AAA앤디 주식회사에 대하여 한 2003년 귀속 법인세 121,985,090원, 같은 날 원고 ����건설 주식회사에 대하여 한 2003년 귀속 법인세 232, 155,600원의 각 부과처분 및 피고 부천세무서장이 같은 날 원고 ○○건설산업 주식회사에 대하여 한 2003년 귀속 법인세 122,153,450원, 같은 날 원고 ◎◎건설주식회사에 대하여 한 2003년 귀속 법인세 121,862,120원, 같은 날 원고 ●●●코리아 주식회사에 대하여 한 2003년 귀속 법인세 176,604,300원의 각 부과처분 을 모두 취소한다.

1. Acceptance of the grounds for the judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the change of the latter part of Article 2.d. (2) of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be replaced;

As to the assertion that the transfer value of the instant shares is within the scope of the normal price

Article 60(3) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that where it is difficult to calculate the market price, it shall be based on the value assessed by the methods prescribed in Articles 61 through 65, taking into account the type, scale, transaction situation, etc. of the relevant property, and Article 61(1)1 of the same Act provides that an appraisal of real estate shall be based on the publicly notified land price and the publicly notified land price under the Act on the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate (wholly amended on January 14, 2005).

However, according to the above factors, the basic date of the value or appraisal value of the land of this case acquired from the Korea Land Corporation in Do, Do, in the first place on June 27, 2002. On the other hand, the transfer date of the shares of this case differs over one year and four months on November 18, 2003, and Do, Do, Do, purchase the land of this case in 24,85,000,000 won, but the officially assessed land price of this case was 36,684,00,000 won at the time of entering into a sales contract by Do, Do, Do, and Do, Do, in the second place on July 7, 2004, Do, Do, in the second place on the land of this case, Do, in the first place on the land of this case, it is difficult to view the sale price of this case to 31,601,600 won at the time of the sale of the land of this case to 1, 30135,200.

As a result of fact-finding on the land of the party member, the Korea Appraisal Board, and the head of the Si/Gun/Gu, respectively, the method of calculating the officially assessed individual land price shall be determined by applying the rate of appraisal according to the difference in land characteristics on the basis of the officially assessed land price list. However, the appraisal method shall be determined based on the officially assessed land price of the reference land deemed to have similar usefulness to the relevant land pursuant to Article 21 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate Act, and the appraisal method shall be determined by comparing the factors affecting the objective value of the land such as location, topography, and environment with one or more reference land and the land to be appraised, and the appraisal method shall maintain a balance between the officially assessed land price and the reference land price of the reference land. Since the appraisal method is the same in that the officially assessed individual land price is determined on the basis of the officially assessed land price of the reference land price, while the appraisal method shall only apply the price adjustment from the basic date to the date of appraisal, individual factors (general road access conditions, administrative conditions, appraisal conditions, and various appraisal conditions and appraisal methods, etc.

Meanwhile, even if the tax authority assessed the value of inherited property as the officially assessed individual land price for the reason that it is difficult for the tax authority to assess the market value of inherited property at the time of inheritance, if it proves the market value of inherited property until the conclusion of the fact-finding hearing in a lawsuit seeking revocation of the taxation, it shall determine whether the amount of the taxation exceeds the reasonable amount of tax, and then the "market price" refers to the objective exchange price formed through normal transactions in principle, but it is a concept that includes the value assessed in an objective and reasonable manner, so if there is no exchange price through transactions, the appraisal price of the reliable appraisal institution can be seen as the "market price," and even if the value is not changed by retroactive appraisal (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Du2356, Sept. 30, 2005).

Therefore, according to the appraisal result of the appraisal by the appraisal institution's retroactive appraisal, the appraisal value at the time of November 18, 2003 can be acknowledged as constituting 42,85,036,900 of the land of this case. This is clear from the fact that the appraisal value at the time of February 2003 is much more than 38,459,000 won of the officially assessed individual land price around February 2003. Thus, the defendants cannot be found to have any errors by evaluating the land of this case based on the officially assessed individual land price of this case under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act.

(3) the statement that there is a legitimate cause on the date of the transfer of the shares of this case.

In light of the following circumstances, i.e., the land of this case from the time of the acquisition of the land of this case to the time when the plaintiffs transfer the land of this case, i.e., the land of this case was subject to restrictions under the public law, ii) the plaintiffs were sufficiently aware or could have known of such restrictions under the public law, iii) the size of the land of this case is 84,526.7m2, and the sale price of this case is sufficiently foreseeable in light of the circumstances equivalent to 2.4.8 billion won in the land of this case (attached Table 1), so it is difficult to view that the land of this case was transferred from the time of the acquisition of the land of this case to the time of the transfer of the land of this case, i.e., the land of this case to the time of the sale of the land of this case, i., e., the land of this case to the time of the sale of the land of this case, 20,640m2, and 300% of the land size of the land of this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and all appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.