Suwon District Court 2009Guhap2093 (Law No. 22, 2009)

Examination transfer 208-023 ( December 12, 2008)

Appropriateness of the assertion that a default bill was not reflected in the assessment of shares by supplementary assessment methods

It is difficult to conclude that the amount of the bill was not stated in the financial statements when considering the default date of the defaulted bill held by the holder, and it is reasonable to evaluate the net asset value on the basis of the book value even if it was not stated in the financial statements.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 50,615,930 against the plaintiff on July 1, 2008 shall be revoked.

The reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance are reasonable (However, the "total debt amount of 1.446 billion won" in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be cited as the "total debt amount of 1.466 billion won" in the judgment of the court of first instance. Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be cited as the reasons for the judgment of this case in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

For the grounds of appeal of this case, the Plaintiff asserts that the real value of the shares of this case is only KRW 10,000 per share, which is the actual transfer price, and that the taxation based on the supplementary assessment method is contrary to the principle of substantial taxation or the principle of fair taxation. However, there is no evidence to deem that the real value of the shares of this case is merely the amount claimed by the Plaintiff, and there is no ground to deem that the calculation based on the supplementary assessment method is contrary to the principle of substantial taxation. Thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.