Plaintiff (Attorney Yang Sung-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Director of the sericultural Tax Office

November 11, 2015

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2013Guhap59033 decided June 26, 2015

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The imposition of inheritance tax of KRW 6,155,928,708 (including additional tax) imposed on the Plaintiff on November 7, 2011 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revocation shall be dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for a partial modification of the judgment of the court of first instance as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Thus, this is cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. The modified part;

○ The following shall be added at the end of 7th page 10:

Article 49(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act provides that “In the case of a high-priced transfer and high-priced transfer, a transferee’s employee constitutes a specially related person.” Nonparty 3 and Nonparty 4 asserts that construction does not constitute a specially related person of ○○○ Construction, who is the transferor, not an employee of Nonparty 3 and Nonparty 4.” On the other hand, this case is not about the duty to pay gift tax or the gift tax, but about whether the transaction value of stocks at issue can be seen as the market price. The market price includes that is recognized as the market price in accordance with Presidential Decree, such as expropriation price, public sale price, appraisal price, etc., which is ordinarily established when a free transaction is made between many and unspecified persons, and Article 60(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act provides that the sale price of the relevant property is recognized as the market price, but it is recognized as the market price in the case of a transaction transaction by Nonparty 4, who is not a specially related person under the former Enforcement Decree, and it does not correspond to Article 26(4).

The evidence Nos. 2 and 3 of Nos. 15 of Chapter 9 is as follows: “Nos. 2, 3, and 7-1, 2, 3, and 8 of the evidence Nos. 7”; “No. 9” is as follows.

“The consultative deliberation committee for assessment under the proviso of Article 49(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act requires the procedure to be recognized as the market price in the event of a sale, etc. during the period not falling under the evaluation period. The Seoul Regional Tax Office’s Property Evaluation Deliberation Committee merely deliberated on whether there was a circumstance of price fluctuations from December 4, 2009, which was the date of the sales contract for the instant lease business transaction transaction to the evaluation criteria, on the premise that the transaction does not constitute a transaction with a related party.”

○ On the 12th page, the following shall be added:

On December 4, 2009, Nonparty 2 entered into an agreement on the acquisition of shares between Nonparty 2 and ○○ Construction to comprehensively transfer all rights and obligations with respect to 50% of the shares in △△ Construction.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Sung Pung-tae (Presiding Judge)