(a) Whether a person who has subscribed for shares constitutes deemed donation under Article 32-2 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act where the person who has subscribed for shares fails to take the procedure for transferring shares in the name of another person;

(b) The meaning of the market price under Article 5 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act and the method of calculating the market price of unlisted stocks;

A. If Gap acquired the registered shares of a construction company and transferred the shares to another person, such as the register of shareholders, then the shares of the construction company are not issued, and even if the account holder did not actually take the procedure for transferring shares, it constitutes deemed donation under Article 32-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act.

B. The "market price" in Article 5 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act refers to the objective exchange price formed through normal transactions. Since it is reasonable to regard the market price of listed stocks as the market price in the event of mass transactions such as listed stocks, and it is reasonable to regard the price as the market price in the case of non-listed stocks with less market value than the market price in which the objective exchange value was appropriately reflected. If it is difficult to calculate the market price due to such a method, the price of stocks should be assessed by supplementary methods in accordance with the method of appraisal of securities as stipulated in Article 5 (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act. Thus, since the face value of stocks shall not be considered as the price of the donated

(a) Article 32-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act, Article 5(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act;

B. Supreme Court Decision 86Nu318 delivered on January 20, 1987, Supreme Court Decision 87Nu439 delivered on September 8, 1987

Plaintiff 1 and 2 others, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Director of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 86Gu133 delivered on April 14, 1987

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the non-party 1 entered the non-party 2 as a shareholder per share 12,00,000 shares, 60,000 shares per share, and 5,000 won per share (hereinafter referred to as "alternative Construction"). Under the agreement with the plaintiffs, according to the above facts, the court below determined that the non-party 1 was legitimate in the case where the non-party 2 was the actual owner of shares, and the non-party 1 was the actual owner of shares, under the agreement with the plaintiffs, in order to reduce the amount of 18,00 shares, 90,000 shares, 90,0000 shares, 30,000 shares, 6,000 shares, 30,000 shares, and 2 was listed as the shareholders of the non-party 12,00 shares, 60,000,000 shares per share.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, such as theory of lawsuit, or misapprehension of the legal principle, and according to the evidence No. 14-2 (Articles of Incorporation), each of the above shares is recognized as a registered shares, and it is clear that each of the above shares constitutes a property requiring transfer of rights or exercise of rights under Article 32-2 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act, and therefore, if the above non-party No. 1 acquired each of the above shares and transferred a transfer of rights to the plaintiffs under the name of the plaintiffs, as legally determined by the court below, there was no share certificate of No. 1 of No. 32-2 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act, and even if the plaintiffs did not actually take the procedure for transfer of shares, it constitutes a deemed donation under the provisions of the same Act.

2. However, according to the records, it is clear that the defendant assessed the value of each of the above stocks with the restriction on donation to the plaintiffs as per face value of 5,000 won per share, and made the disposition imposing the gift tax of this case as its tax base.

However, according to Articles 9(1) and 9(2) of the Inheritance Tax Act, which apply mutatis mutandis to gift tax pursuant to Article 34-5 of the same Act, the value of inherited property shall be based on the current status at the time of commencement of inheritance, but the value of inherited property which is not reported or omitted in a report pursuant to Article 20 of the same Act shall be appraised at the time of imposition of inheritance tax. According to Article 5(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the value of the inherited property at the time of commencement of inheritance provided for in Article 9 of the Act or the value at the time of imposition of inheritance tax shall be appraised at the time of imposition of inheritance tax, respectively, by the method provided for in paragraphs (2) through (5) if it is difficult to calculate the market price at the time of commencement of inheritance or by the method provided for in Article 5(1) of the same Act. Here

Therefore, it is reasonable to see that the market price is the market price in a case where a large volume transaction, such as listed stocks, is conducted every day as the market price, or in the case of unlisted stocks with less market value, if there is an example of sale acknowledged to have properly reflected the objective exchange value (see the above party members' decision). If it is difficult to calculate the market price due to such a method, the value of stocks shall be assessed in accordance with the method of appraisal of securities provided for in Article 5 (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act by supplementary method, and the face value of stocks shall not be considered as the value of donated property and shall not

Nevertheless, the court below determined that the Defendant’s disposition of this case lawful, which decided that the Defendant’s disposition of this case was lawful, based on the market price or the face value of each of the above shares under the name of the Plaintiffs as the tax base without examining and determining the value of each of the above shares. It erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the appraisal of value of donated property, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations. The grounds for appeal are with merit.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yellow-ray (Presiding Justice)