Seoul Administrative Court 2012Guhap10970 ( November 16, 2012)

It shall not be deemed that it has been acquired at a price significantly lower than the market price due to the legitimate reason;

(As in the first instance judgment, it cannot be deemed that the calculation of the market price is considerably unreasonable as of the date of transfer of rights due to the rapid increase of the share price, but the determination of the sales price per share cannot be deemed as a decision-making contrary to the practice of transaction, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the market price was acquired at a price considerably lower than the market price due to

2012Nu39577 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax, etc.

AAAAA

Head of Yongsan Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Guhap10970 decided November 16, 2012

April 26, 2013

May 24, 2013

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of OO (including additional tax) of gift tax against the Plaintiff on March 8, 2010 is revoked.

Purport of appeal

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

The reasons for this decision are as shown in the judgment of the court of first instance (the defendant's assertion that the disposition of this case is legitimate and new after appeal, that is, the plaintiff who is the taxpayer, bears the burden of proving the fact that there are justifiable grounds for the transactional practice under Article 35 (2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and that the transfer of the shares of this case constitutes an abnormal transaction that is unreasonable in light of transactional practice, and that the plaintiff purchased the shares of this case by inducing the defective decision-making of Nan Kim, pursuant to Article 2 (3) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act that provides the comprehensive gift tax principle, the transfer of shares of this case is subject to gift tax, and that there is no need to consider the intention of the

If so, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and the appeal of the defendant is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.