Whether a non-designated donation is a non-designated donation of the purchase price of stocks purchased from an unrelated party;

Any disposition that imposes corporate tax on non-designated donations on the basis of the difference between the purchase price and the normal price for the fact of purchasing stocks at a price higher than the normal price without good cause shall be deemed to be a donation.

Article 24 (Non-Inclusion of Contribution in Loss)

Article 35 of the Enforcement Decree of Corporate Tax Act

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 shall revoke the disposition of imposition of 543,753,440 won of corporate tax for the business year 2000 against the plaintiff on November 1, 2002.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons stated by the court concerning the instant case are as stated in the reasoning of the first judgment except for the parts added as stated in the following 2.2. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Forwarding Act.

2. The addition;

A. On the 5th page of the judgment of the court of first instance, the purchase price of the shares of this case is added to "in addition, the purchase price of the shares of this case constitutes the market price which reflects the influence of the motion picture producer at the next ○○○'s highest motion picture producer at the time of production, ○○○, ○○○, etc., the future economic benefits that may be inflicted on the motion picture produced or in the production plan, and the corporate value of

B. On the 6th page, following the first page, "in addition, even if the purchase price of the shares of this case does not correspond to the market price, there is a legitimate reason to purchase the shares of this case at a high price since it is determined in consideration of the influence of ○○ and economic gains that will be produced in the future, and the ○ film including such economic gains, and the business value

C. On June 6, 200, the average market price of the instant shares is at least 883,049 won, calculated by dividing the total price for stock trading between the Plaintiff and three persons, including the next ○○○, by the total number of stocks, and accordingly, the normal price is KRW 1,147,963, which adds 30% to the above amount.”

D. After the second page of the 9th page, "it is difficult to view." In addition, even if the purchase price of the shares of this case is reflected in the next ○'s influence as argued by the Plaintiff and the ○ film's corporate value, etc., the price cannot be considered as a general market price that reflects the objective exchange value where only the shares are transferred."

E. In addition, following the 10th page 12, “A’s evidence Nos. 10-1 through 7, A’s evidence Nos. 11-13, A’s evidence Nos. 14-1 through 4, A’s evidence Nos. 15-1 through 4, and the testimony of ○○○○ witness at the trial room is insufficient to view that the ○○ film’s corporate value including economic benefits that may be produced in the future and the influence in the film world was not considered at the time of purchase of the instant shares, and the circumstance that the ○○○○○○’s purchase price of the instant shares included a consideration for the position or influence in the film world of the next ○○○○○ on the same day, it is difficult to deem that there is any justifiable reason to purchase the instant shares more than the price purchased from other two persons on the same day.”

F. On June 23, 2000, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit, since the average purchase price of the instant stock cannot be seen as the normal transaction price as seen earlier, including the purchase price of the instant stock, since the average purchase price of the instant stock cannot be seen as the normal transaction price.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.