Whether Article 16-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act shall apply to a stock without listing, where the market price is unclear in determining whether the transaction price is a low-price transfer even if the transaction price reflects an objective exchange value appropriately (negative)

Article 46 (2) 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act refers to the market price of assets formed normally by transaction. Thus, whether to grant a provisional transfer is determined on the basis of normal transaction price, and even in cases where a transaction of stocks not listed on the Stock Exchange is conducted without precedents of transaction, if there are circumstances to view that the transaction properly reflects the objective exchange value at the time of the transaction because the transaction was conducted in a general and normal manner, the transaction price can be deemed the market price at the time. As long as the sale price of stocks can be deemed the market price at the time, the stock cannot be deemed the case where the market price at the time is unclear, so there is no room to apply the provisions of Article

Article 46 (2) 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 16-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act

Supreme Court Decision 80Nu522 decided Feb. 9, 1982 (Gong1982, 341) 83Nu392 decided Nov. 8, 1983 (Gong1984, 44) 86Nu408 decided May 26, 1987 (Gong1087, 1086)

continental Chemical Industry Company

Daejeon Head of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu7332 delivered on December 18, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined.

The court below held that since the market price of assets under Article 46 (2) 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act refers to the price of assets which are normally formed by ordinary transactions (see Supreme Court Decision 83Nu392, Nov. 8, 1983; 83Nu392, Nov. 8, 1983; 201Nu408, Jun. 14, 1988; 201Nu408, Jun. 26, 2008; 201Nu408, Jun. 14, 208; 201Nu408, Jun. 14, 1988; 201Nu408, Jun. 26, 201; 201Du408, Feb. 28, 2018; 201Du1408, Jun. 28, 201).

In light of relevant evidence and records and the provisions of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the above recognition judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and the judgment of the court below cannot be deemed to be erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 16-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act, etc. without making a proper deliberation as in the judgment below as in the lawsuit

Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)