Whether the value per stock of the unlisted stocks appraised by the court appraiser has been excessive in relation to the excessive appropriation of the inventory assets claimed by the plaintiff

As of December 31, 2009, the court appraiser appraised that the assessment amount per share according to the supplementary assessment method stipulated in the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act of the instant shares as of December 31, 2009 is 2,305 won. If the above amount is less than the acquisition value between the Plaintiff and the seller, the disposition of the instant case by the Defendant is unlawful.

Article 35 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (Donation, etc. of Profits from Transfer of High Price)

2014Guhap10382 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

00

00. Head of tax office

December 24, 2015

on 21, 2016

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 133,519,970 against the Plaintiff should be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

1) The Plaintiff sought revocation of the disposition imposing gift tax as of April 30, 2013, but this is recognized as an error in the disposition imposing gift tax as of July 11, 2013, and thus, the date of the disposition is corrected as of July 11, 2013.

Cheong-gu Office

Paragraph (1) shall apply.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff acquired 32,00 shares (bb 10,000 shares, cc 22,000 shares, hereinafter referred to as "the shares of this case") from among the shares of the instant company held by Nonparty BB and CC (hereinafter referred to as "sellers") as the representative director and the shareholder of Aa (hereinafter referred to as "the instant company") located in 00,000,000 shares per share in 0,000 shares of the instant company.

B. As a result of an investigation on the change of shares with respect to the instant company from April 1, 2013 to April 20, 2013, the Defendant deemed that the transaction of the instant shares constitutes the acquisition of property at a price substantially lower than the market price under the transactional practice between persons who are not related parties under Article 35(2) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 13557, Dec. 15, 2015; hereinafter “former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”), and deemed that the transaction of the instant shares constitutes the acquisition of property at a price considerably lower than the market price without justifiable reasons. On April 30, 2013, the Defendant assessed the value of the instant shares as KRW 47,658 per share according to the supplementary assessment method stipulated under the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and notified the Plaintiff that the gift tax on the instant shares would be imposed.

C. Accordingly, on June 11, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a request for pre-assessment review with the Defendant. The Defendant revaluated the assessed value per share of the instant shares into KRW 40,540 on the ground that the net asset value per share was calculated by mistake in the process of evaluating the instant shares, and then imposed a disposition on the Plaintiff on July 11, 2013 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff requested for adjudication against the Director of the Tax Tribunal on July 11, 2013, but the said request was filed on July 2014.

1. It was dismissed on 16.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The fact that the Plaintiff acquired the instant shares from the seller is due to the fact that the seller initially determined that the prospect of the instant company was good, and that the seller, who made investments, failed to make profit or profit by making the instant company less business performance than the anticipated, sold the instant shares to a third party, or that the Plaintiff voluntarily accepted the instant shares to recover the investment amount, and that the transaction of the instant shares between the Plaintiff and the seller was made at a price higher than the reasonable price or the market price.

2) In addition, the Defendant calculated the value per share of the instant shares pursuant to Article 54 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, based on the details of the instant corporate tax return, balance sheet, and the appropriation of retained earnings, etc., of the instant company. The instant company, even if it was a person who actually was using the method such as increasing the debt ratio by using the method such as increasing the debt ratio, prepared the details of the return of the corporate tax, balance sheet, and the appropriation of retained earnings, etc., as if there was operating profits, and the

3) Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s transfer of the instant shares at a price significantly lower than the market price without justifiable grounds.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Article 35(1)1 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that where a person acquires an asset from another person at a price lower than the market price, the transferee of the asset shall be deemed to have received a donation equivalent to the difference between the price and the market price, as prescribed by Presidential Decree. In applying Article 35(1)2 of the same Act, where a person who is not a related party prescribed by Presidential Decree acquires or transfers the asset between the parties, and without justifiable grounds, acquires or transfers the asset at a price significantly lower than the market price or at a remarkably higher price than the market price, the amount equivalent to the profits prescribed by Presidential Decree shall be deemed to have been donated to the person who acquired the benefit as a gift. In applying Article 35(2) of the same Act, the scope of the value significantly lower or considerably higher or higher shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree. Accordingly, Article 26(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that the amount calculated by subtracting the price from the market price of the acquired asset (excluding those falling under each subparagraph of paragraph (1)) is 30/1).

2) The Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff acquired the instant shares at a price significantly lower than the market price, and accordingly, disposed of the instant shares to the Plaintiff. Moreover, there is no special circumstance or material to deem that KRW 5,000,00, the face value of the instant shares, was formed through a general and normal transaction between many and unspecified persons, and that such price is reflected in the objective exchange value. Therefore, it is reasonable to calculate the market price of the instant shares by the supplementary assessment method. Accordingly, we examine whether the acquisition value of the instant shares constitutes a remarkably lower price in light of the market price calculated by the supplementary assessment method.

3) Article 60(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "the value of the property on which the gift tax is levied under this Act shall be based on the market price as of the date of donation (hereinafter referred to as "the base date for appraisal")," Paragraph (3) provides that "in cases where it is difficult to calculate the market price in applying the provisions of paragraph (1), it shall be based on the appraised value under the provisions of Articles 61 through 65 in consideration of the type, scale, transaction circumstances, etc. of the property in question, and where it is difficult to calculate the market price, the value according to the so-called supplementary valuation method shall be deemed to be "market value". Paragraph (1) 1 (c) of Article 63 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "the stocks and equity shares which are not listed on the Korea Stock Exchange shall be appraised by the method as prescribed by the Presidential Decree in consideration of the assets and earnings, etc. of the corporation in question". Meanwhile, Article 54 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "the net value of the corporation in question value per share" calculated by dividing 6 "the net asset value" by the net value per share.

In addition, the burden of proving the net asset value, etc. is, in principle, at the tax authority, at the time of transfer, the burden of proving exceptional circumstances, such as where the assets of the corporation are different from the balance sheet, or where the assets of the corporation are different from the balance sheet (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du12458, May 13, 2003).

4) As to the instant case, the following circumstances, i.e., the Plaintiff’s financial statements, etc., are acknowledged to show the overall purport of the pleadings as a result of the request for market price appraisal to the Health Team, Gap’s evidence Nos. 4 through 6, and the d e d e e d d d e (hereinafter “court appraiser”).

In light of the size of the Plaintiff’s sales amount, it seems that there is a false and excessive portion of inventory assets in light of the Plaintiff’s sales amount. It seems that there is a doubt that there is a false and excessive portion of inventory assets. In the case of a corporation intending to participate in a tender ordered by a public institution, there may be small appearance as if there are profits on the financial statements for bidding. ② The court appraiser has appraised as to whether the inventory assets of the company of this case are calculated by classifying all the raw materials purchase amount of the company of this case, confirming the raw materials input amount corresponding to the sales amount by construction site, and applying the difference between the Plaintiff and the seller’s price of the company of this case. The appraisal value of the company of this case is considerably low compared to the sale price of the company of this case. In light of the above facts that most of the materials presented by the Plaintiff or the statement of the Plaintiff is reflected in the calculation method of the Plaintiff’s stocks, the appraisal value per share is no more than the sale price of the company of this case, and the appraisal value per share is no more than the acquisition price of this case.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

partnership.