Whether the transferor and transferee of the property belong to the transferor and transferee, and if the transferor is the representative director and the transferee is the shareholder of the corporation, whether they are persons with special relations under Article 41 (2) 6 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act.

The transferee of the property is the same book as the transferor, and the transferor is the representative director and the stockholder of the stock company. However, it cannot be concluded that the transferee is the transferor's relationship under Article 41 (2) 6 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13196 of Dec. 31, 190) and Article 11 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 1849 of Mar. 9, 191).

Article 41 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Inheritance Tax Act, Article 11 of the Enforcement Rule of the former Inheritance Tax Act

Kim Jong-soo et al.

Head of the Tax Office;

1. Each disposition of KRW 7,748,280, 280, and the defense tax of KRW 1,354,230, and KRW 592,480, and KRW 107,720, and KRW 107,720, and KRW 3,759,430, and KRW 683,530, and KRW 683,530, which were imposed by the Defendant as of September 16, 198, shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The text shall be as shown in the text.

In full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Gap evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 4, Eul evidence No. 1 through 6, Eul evidence No. 10, Eul evidence No. 10, and Eul evidence No. 10 and the purport of the oral argument for Kim Jong-sik's testimony, which cannot be disputed, the plaintiffs' shares in 920/9360 (hereinafter "the forest land of this case") are calculated as 138,90,000 won for 130,000 won for 40,000 won for 20,000 won for 30,000,000 won for 10,000 won for 20,000 won for 30,000 won for 10,000 won for 30,000 won for 20,000 won for 30,000 won for 30,000 won for 1,7197.

As to this, the plaintiffs, first, did not have a special relationship with the plaintiffs under Article 41 (2) of the Enforcement Decree, and second, asserted that the tax disposition of this case is unlawful, since the price at the time was determined by the market price, and the price at the time was determined by the price at the time, and the price at the time was stipulated by Article 34-2 (2) of the Inheritance Tax Act, since the price at the time was determined by the above non-party's forest sale price paid to the plaintiffs.

Therefore, first of all, we examine whether the plaintiffs had a special relationship under Article 41 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act at the time of selling the forest land of this case to the above so-called so-called "the above-called "the above-mentioned person" and Article 41 (2) 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act provide for the relation of the transferor as one of the related parties under Article 34-2 (2) of the Inheritance Tax Act, and Article 11 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act provides that the relation of the transferor is objectively clear about the relation of the transferor, the relation between the transferor and the Dong-gu, and the same workplace, and the burden of proving that the transferee of the property is the transferor and the person in a special relationship under the above Enforcement Decree of the above Act is the tax authority. If the plaintiff's testimony was collected, the above-mentioned person's representative director and the non-party company, the above-mentioned representative director and the non-party company, the above-mentioned person, the above-mentioned person's special relationship.

Furthermore, Article 41(4) of the Enforcement Decree provides that “The value of the instant forest is 130/100 or more of the value stipulated in Articles 5 through 7 of the Enforcement Decree.” Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree provides that the value of inherited property shall be calculated at the market price in a specific area for land and buildings, and the value of other areas shall be calculated at the standard market price under Article 5(2) through (5) of the Local Tax Act because it is difficult to calculate the market price at the time of donation, the burden of proving that the supplementary appraisal method under Article 5(2) through (5) of the Enforcement Decree has no choice but to be selected by the Defendant because it is difficult to calculate the market price at the time of donation.” Article 34-2(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act provides that “The value of the instant forest is 10/100 or more of the value of the instant forest land assessed by the Defendant pursuant to Article 5(2)1(b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act. The value of the instant forest land is 130/10.

In regard to the above argument, the defendant argued that, besides the above argument, the above maximum return was the amount calculated by deducting the standard amount of taxation under the Local Tax Act from the price of forest land in this case from the price of forest land in this case, and that the tax disposition in this case was made by recognizing that it was actually donated rather than the above deemed donation. However, although evidence Nos. 7 and 8 were proved as evidence consistent with the above facts, there were evidence Nos. 7 and 8, Eul evidence Nos. 7 was a tax investigation report prepared by a tax official, and (2) generally, the standard amount of taxation under the Local Tax Act of real estate falls short of the amount of ordinary purchase price, and deeming that the standard amount of taxation under the Local Tax Act is only the actual purchase price and the remaining amount is the donation amount is contrary to our rule of law. In light of the fact that it is difficult to believe that this evidence is all, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise, the tax disposition in this case is unlawful even if the defendant made the tax disposition in this case by the above facts.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case seeking the revocation of the taxation disposition of this case is justified, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Judge)