Seoul Administrative Court 201Guhap9669 ( October 23, 2012)

Seocho 201Written 1321 ( October 26, 2011)

there is no evidence to deem that the company had undergone the solicitation procedure for subscription, and thus constitutes donation.

As a result, the board of directors passed a resolution to issue new shares and it cannot be deemed that it constitutes a distribution by means of securities offering, which is an exception to deemed donation due to capital increase, and there is no evidence to deem that the non-party company had gone through the solicitation procedure for subscription.

2012Nu9125 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

DoAA

Head of Yongsan Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2011Guhap9669 decided February 23, 2012

July 6, 2012

September 7, 2012

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance court shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke each disposition of increase in the capital on March 11, 201, as stated in the separate sheet against the plaintiff on March 11, 201.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is the same as that of the court of first instance except as follows, and it is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

O Nos. 9, 12, 10, 3, 10, 100,000.

In assessing the above facts and the whole purport of the evidence and arguments, i.e., the defendant's evaluation value per share before the date of resolution of the board of directors, not on April 10, 2007, but on May 3, 2007, the day before the date of payment of shares. ② Under the formula of Article 29 (3) 1 through 3 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, "in the case of a listed corporation and a KOSDAQ listed corporation under Article 63 (1) 1 (b) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the evaluation value per share before the date of increase of shares is determined as the average value of the closing price of the Korea Stock Exchange published before the date of increase of shares, and it is reasonable to view that the defendant's evaluation value per share under Article 63 (1) 1 (b) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act should be determined as the date of increase of shares until the date of increase of shares, and that it should be determined as 20 days prior to the date of appraisal.

O There are no pages 13, 19 and 20

The price of the shares of the non-party company held by shareholders excluded from the protection deposit does not protect all new shares issued due to the increase in the capital of the non-party company as stated in Gap and Eul evidence 3, and 5. Thus, the price of the shares of the non-party company formed on the premise that there is no restriction on the transaction is the market price of the non-party company formed on the premise that there is no restriction on the transaction."

2. Conclusion

If so, the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.