[1] Requirements for calculating the value of shares of an unlisted corporation, which is an inherited property, by the supplementary evaluation method under Article 5 (6) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act

[2] In calculating the net asset value of a corporation for the evaluation of unlisted stocks, whether only a part of the corporation's assets can be calculated based on the market price appraisal value (affirmative)

[1] In a case where there is no appraisal value assessed in an objective and reasonable manner for the stocks of a non-listed corporation, it is difficult to calculate the market price of the relevant stocks. Thus, the value can be calculated by the supplementary evaluation method under Article 5 (6) 1 (b) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13801 of Dec. 31, 1992).

[2] The purport of Article 5 (6) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13801, Dec. 31, 1992) is that the method of market price appraisal can be used to properly reflect the market price as possible in the case of assessing the net asset value. Thus, it cannot be viewed that the appraisal of all the assets of the pertinent corporation should be made by appraising the assets of the pertinent corporation. Thus, it cannot be viewed that the market price of the reliable appraisal institution’s market price appraisal of some assets is illegal on the ground that it was based on the appraisal price only on the assets.

[1] Article 9(1)(see current Article 60) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5193, Dec. 30, 1996); Article 5(6)1(b) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13801, Dec. 31, 1992; see current Article 54) / [2] Article 9(1)(see current Article 60) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5193, Dec. 30, 1996); Article 5(6)1(b)(c) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13801, Dec. 31, 1992; see current Articles 54 and 55)

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 96Nu9423 delivered on October 29, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 3612) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 90Nu1229 delivered on July 10, 1990 (Gong1990, 1731) Supreme Court Decision 94Nu15905 delivered on December 8, 1995 (Gong196Sang, 426)

Lee Jong-hun et al. (Attorneys Park Jong-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of the Tax Office;

Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu19084, 23205 delivered on November 1, 1995

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against each party.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

(1) As to the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal No. 1

In a case where there is no appraisal value assessed in an objective and reasonable manner with respect to the stocks of an unlisted corporation, it is difficult to calculate the market price of the relevant stocks. Thus, the value may be calculated by the supplementary evaluation method pursuant to Article 5 (6) 1 (b) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13801, Dec. 31, 1992; hereinafter the same shall apply) (see Supreme Court Decisions 90Nu1229, Jul. 10, 1990; 94Nu15905, Dec. 8, 1995; 96Nu9423, Oct. 29, 196).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in around 192, 192, the time of the inheritance of this case, 660,00 shares issued by Taeju Unemployment Co., Ltd., a non-listed corporation, was 660,00 shares and all of its shareholders were 19 shares. In addition, during the five-year period from 190 to 1994 from the time of the above inheritance, the transfer of shares by Taeju unemployment Co., Ltd., which was 72,171 shares (e.g., par value 5,00 shares) of the deceased to the deceased to the non-party 192 was the only transaction between the non-party 1 and the non-party 1,00 shares, except for the change in the name of the plaintiff Lee Jong-hun, and the above purchaser was the representative director of Taeju Stock Co., Ltd., a non-listed corporation and the above fact that the above company was the non-listed shares whose market price was formed among many and unspecified persons, so it cannot be deemed reasonable that the defendant's trust value of the above shares.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding of the court below is just and it is reasonable to determine that the evaluation of the non-listed stocks of this case can be based on the above facts according to the supplementary evaluation method, and there is no error of law such as incomplete deliberation, violation of the rules of evidence, misunderstanding of legal principles, and violation of the precedents, etc.

(2) As to the ground of appeal No. 2 by the Plaintiff

In assessing the unlisted stocks of a corporation according to the supplementary evaluation method, the net asset value under Article 5 (6) 1 (c) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act provides that "the net asset value under item (b) shall be the value of the property as of the date of commencing the inheritance which is appraised by this Decree, but the appraisal may be made by the market value appraisal certificate of a reliable appraisal institution." The purport of the above provision is that in assessing the net asset value, the method of market price appraisal can be used to properly reflect the market value as possible, and it cannot be viewed to the purport that the net asset value should be assessed by appraising all the assets of the corporation. Thus, since the market value of a reliable appraisal institution's market value of some assets is assessed only by the value of the market value, it cannot be deemed illegal (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu9423, Oct. 29, 196).

In the same purport, the judgment of the court below that the calculation of net asset value by applying the appraisal value to only the land for factory in the 48-5-dong, Sung-si, Sung-si, Sung-si among the assets of the Tae-si Unemployment Co., Ltd. is justifiable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the method of appraisal of unlisted stocks,

(3) As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

According to the records, 42,724 shares of the non-party non-party non-party-product corporation, which was included in the defendant's inherited property, are acceptable in the decision of the court below that the non-party-use Gu, the representative director of the non-party-based corporation, has held the title trust to the deceased, and there is no error in the rules of evidence, violation of the rules of evidence, violation

(4) Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)