Busan High Court-2015-Gu Partnership-24155 (Law No. 12, 2016)

Where it is difficult to calculate the market price of unlisted stocks, the political party shall calculate the price per stock according to the supplementary evaluation method under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act.

(1) The stock transaction between the plaintiff and the non-party company in this case cannot be deemed as the market price reflecting objective exchange values as it was formed by a transaction in relation with a specially related person. The provision of wrongful calculation shall apply as it falls under a case where tax burden has been unjustly reduced, and a disposition by supplementary evaluation method under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is legitimate.

Article 101 of the Income Tax Act, Article 60 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

2016Nu21268 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax, etc.

AA

BB Director of the Tax Office

on January 24, 2016

on 21, 2016

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of the capital gains tax for the Plaintiff on August 10, 2015, the imposition of the capital gains tax for the year 2012, OOO.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O., and OOO.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reason why the court is to use this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

It shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Transmission Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[The plaintiff repeats the same argument in the first instance court to the effect that "the disposition of this case, which the defendant denied it and assessed the value in accordance with the supplementary assessment methods, is unlawful, even though the sale of the stocks of this case to the non-party company at KRW 6,153 per share under the conditions as stipulated by the articles of incorporation, is normal transaction in accordance with the market price." Thus, even if considering the allegations and reasons that the plaintiff partly supplemented, and the statement of the evidence Nos. 5, 6, and 7 (including the serial number) submitted additionally, are examined, "the stock transaction of this case is a transaction between related parties, and 6,153 won, which the plaintiff reported at the price per share of the stocks of this case, is not considered to properly reflect the objective exchange value, and thus, it cannot be deemed to be the market price. Therefore, we affirm the first instance court's rejection of the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant calculated the transfer value by applying the unfair calculation method under the Income Tax Act by assessing the value per share as 12,522 won."

2. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be this.

As a result, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.