Seoul Administrative Court 2013Guhap2362 (05.02)

There is no evidence to deem that the transfer value of the instant sales case is false, and there is no evidence to deem that the transferor or transferee is a person with a special relationship.

With no evidence to deem that the transfer value of the instant transaction case was false on the sole basis of the allegations and grounds alleged by the Defendant, and there is no evidence to deem that AA was a person who exercises de facto influence over the management of the instant company solely on the sole basis of the circumstance alleged by the Defendant.

Article 60 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act: Principles of Appraisal

2014Nu5291 Revocation of Disposition of Revocation of Inheritance Tax Imposition

BB

○ Head of tax office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2014Guhap2362 decided May 2, 2014

November 5, 2014

December 17, 2014

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s disposition of imposing inheritance tax of KRW 240,462,065 against the Plaintiff on September 20, 2012 exceeds KRW 132,534,065, shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

This court's reasoning is as follows. This court's reasoning is as follows, except for the defendant's new argument that is specifically emphasized by this court or newly raised by this court, and this court's reasoning is cited by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant's assertion

1) The assertion that it is difficult to believe business conduct among AA and CCC

AAA, who worked as the representative director of the instant company on June 13, 201, prepared a share transfer contract with the CCC to transfer 1,500 shares (5%) (5,000,000 won per share) of the instant company to 145,00,000 won (96,666 won per share). However, unlike general cases, the said share transfer contract is up to 3 copies in total, unlike general cases, and it is difficult to believe its contents in light of the difference between the transfer value and the transferee’s and the transferee’s seal impression for each share transfer contract, it cannot be deemed that the transfer value of the said share transfer contract constitutes business example determination of the market price of the instant company’s shares inherited by the Plaintiff.

2) The argument that AA and CCC constitute a specially related person.

In light of the fact that AA, the representative director of a limited liability company, has succeeded to the shares of the company of this case to CCC and DD before transferring the shares of this case, and was a member holding the largest shares by 25% each of the shares of the company of this case, and that AA is in office for the company of this case until now, AA constitutes a person who has de facto control over the management of the company by exercising the right to appoint officers or determining business policies.

B. Determination

1) According to the evidence adopted in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance that it is difficult to believe the transaction example among AA and CCC, and the purport of the testimony and pleading of AA witness and witness witness of the trial, AAA, on June 13, 201, transferred the price of KRW 145,00,000 (5%) to CCC (96,666 per share) for the shares of the company of this case. On August 31, 2011, AA reported and paid the transfer income tax to the head of the tax office 00,000,000 won with the share transfer price of KRW 125,500,000,000,000,0000,000 won, which was reported as the share transfer price of the company of this case as the total amount of KRW 125,500,000,000,000,000,00 won.

In addition, at the first instance, AA had reported the transfer value of KRW 125 million at the time of the trial, which was about to lower the tax amount, and later applied for revision of KRW 145 million, which is the amount actually received fromCC.

At the time of the preparation of various forms of contract, the transfer was made to an employee who had worked as the company, and the seal was not considered to be important, and when the seal was affixed or the seal was not affixed, the seal was affixed to the company. The body, in which the personal information of each transferor in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 6-1 and 2, is all the body, and the body, which recorded the personal information of each transferee, is deemed to be the CCC, and all the above contracts are prepared at the time. The determination of the transfer value at the time is not an accurate analysis of the balance sheet or asset value of the company of this case, but because the assets of the company of this case were to be approximately KRW 3 billion, it was determined after calculating 5% interest of the parties concerned, which is the ratio of the transferred stocks.

In full view of the aforementioned facts and the testimony in the AA’s trial, AA may be deemed to have actually transferred the shares of the company of this case to CCC at KRW 145 million. However, in reporting the transfer income tax, various forms of contracts for stock transfer and takeover have been prepared in the course of returning them by falsely reporting the transfer value intended to reduce the transfer value. In light of the contents and process of the transfer of shares of the company of this case and the process of reporting the transfer income tax, etc., it is acceptable that the transfer value of each of the above shares transfer and takeover contract of this case is different from the other points, and its seal is consistent with the facts, and there is no other evidence to deem that the transfer value of each of the above shares transfer and takeover contract of this case is false. Accordingly, the defendant’s assertion on this part is without merit.

2) Determination as to the assertion that AA and CCC constitute a specially related person

According to the evidence adopted in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance and the purport of the testimony and arguments of the witness AA of the trial, the company of this case established on 30th day of 19** the company of this case, and purchased alcoholic beverages from manufacturers and sold them to restaurants, etc., and decided by the board of directors on important matters such as promotion of executive officers in the company of this case. Meanwhile, around 1981 or 1982, A purchased 18.5% of the company's shares in its spouse's name. At the time of 000 shares 49% of the company of this case, the company of this case owned 29.5% of the company's shares to 00, and thereafter sold them to 00, and thereafter, the company of this case owned a maximum share of 26.5% of the company's shares in the company of this case, and there was no significant increase in the number of employees' shares in the company of this case's sales strategy or promotion.

The following circumstances revealed in the facts found in AA’s testimony and the overall purport of arguments at the trial of the AA, i.e., (i) from the time the AA acquired the shares of the AA to the time it solely owned the largest shares of the AAA until it transferred part of the shares of the AA; and (ii) from the time the AA acquired the shares of the AA to the time when the shares of the AA were increased to the maximum extent, the ratio of shares of the AA was much less than the majority; and (iii) from the time when the AA independently determined the shares of the AA or the other directors of the AA were not deemed to have decided by the board of directors pursuant to the AA’s intent; (iv) according to the respective statements in Section 1, 2, and 3, it appears that the AA, CCC, and DD were not paid for each of the instant shares to the 10th executive officers of the 20th executive officers of the 1st executive officers of the 2nd executive officers of the 2nd company.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges and equipment of the presiding judge

Judges fixed-term

Judges Lee Dong-young