Ulsan District Court 2012Guhap1963 (2013.11)

Evaluation of the gift value at the time of registration under the name of the child;

If the market price at the time of registration in the name of the child is above the amount of a bill in the acquisition of apartment house with a face value of 100 million won in payment in lieu of payment, it is reasonable to see that the market price at the time of registration is the gift price and that at the time of registration (acquisition) as the gift price

2013Nu2884 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

OraA

BB Director of the Tax Office

Ulsan District Court Decision 2012Guhap1963 Decided July 11, 2013

April 11, 2014

April 25, 2014

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. On April 8, 2011, the imposition of the gift tax OOO on the plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the part of the first instance court's reasoning, except for the addition of the following judgments and the dismissal of the attached statutes of the first instance court as the attached statutes of this court. Thus, the part of the judgment is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

A. The plaintiff's assertion

"The Secretary of the Maritime Affairs and Fisheries shall announce the first apartment price on September 28, 2007 with respect to the apartment 103-dong 901 (hereinafter referred to as "second apartment") such as OO-dong 205-1 and 3-ground BB apartment 101-dong 601 (hereinafter referred to as "first apartment") on the land of 103-dong 901 (hereinafter referred to as "second apartment". Thus, the above apartment price cannot be deemed as the market price as of June 18, 2007 that the plaintiff acquired each apartment of this case."

The judgment is as shown in the attached Form 3.0.0.

Article 60(3) and Article 61(1)4 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9916, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter referred to as the "Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act") provides that the Defendant’s first publicly announced apartment price as of September 1, 2007 by the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs as of June 1, 2007 shall be deemed the market price at the time of June 18, 2007; Article 60(1) and (2) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that the disposition of this case against the Plaintiff is legitimate; Article 60(1) and (2) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that the value of the property on which gift tax is imposed shall be deemed the market price at the time of the sale of each apartment house at the market price at the time of June 18, 2007; Article 60(1) and (3) of the same Act provides that the market price at the market price at the price at will be freely established.

2) Based on Articles 60(3) and 61(1)4 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the Defendant evaluated the market price of each apartment of this case acquired by the Plaintiff as of September 1, 2007, based on the fact that it is difficult to calculate the market price of each apartment of this case, and calculated it as the market price of each apartment of this case. The above apartment price of each apartment of this case was first published on September 28, 2007 by the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, but the base date was June 1, 2007, since it reflects the transaction price around June 18, 2007, which is the time of acquisition of each apartment of this case.

3) Meanwhile, Article 49(1) and (5) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 60(2) provides that where there is a transaction value of the pertinent apartment and its size, location, use, and item of the same or similar property for a period of not more than three months before and after the date of donation, the relevant apartment and its units are identical or similar to those of the instant apartment and their units are similar to those of the instant apartment and their units submitted to the court under the above provision, the sales cases of other apartment and their units similar to each of the instant apartment submitted by the Defendant are identical to those of the instant apartment and its units were traded in OO or OOOO, and the comparative apartment of the 2 apartment with the same contents were traded in OO or OOOO. However, it is sufficient that the sales cases of the comparative apartment selected by the Defendant were traded in abnormal or exceptional circumstances, or that there was a price change between the date of the instant apartment and the instant apartment at the time of donation.

4) As of January 1, 2008, the apartment price publicly announced by the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on April 30, 2008 as of April 30, 2008, along with the purchase and sale cases of each apartment of this case, is an OOO (OOOwon in Type 1 apartment + 2 apartment OOOO) higher than the apartment price publicly announced on September 28, 2007. According to the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs’ report data, according to the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs’s inquiry, the apartment of the area, such as the OOOO and 2 apartment, which newly constructed and sold BB apartment around November 2007, it appears that the objective exchange value of each apartment of this case was higher than the apartment price publicly announced by the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on September 28, 2007, it does not seem that the Defendant assessed the price of each apartment of this case within the extent of the above apartment price.

3. Conclusion

If so, the conclusion of the first instance court's judgment is justifiable in its conclusion, and thus, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.