Whether a manufacture license should be included in assessing the net asset value of a manufacturer company (affirmative)

A license for manufacture of alcoholic beverages is a kind of financial permission established for securing revenues of the State, but the profits of the person who obtained this license are not limited to a simple reflective profit, but is protected pursuant to the provisions of the Liquor Tax Act. Although the transfer of a license for manufacture of alcoholic beverages under the Liquor Tax Act is not recognized, if the existing licenser voluntarily revokes the license and simultaneously applies for the same license to the same manufacturing place as a substitute for the license, the previous licenser indirectly permits the transfer of the license by granting the license. As long as the new license for manufacture of alcoholic beverages is carried out by the method of obtaining the above supplementary license because it is virtually impossible for the liquor tax authorities to acquire it with the control measures, the property value of the above license cannot be denied in reality, so it is erroneous to include the license for manufacture in assessing the net asset value of the liquor company.

Article 5 of the Liquor Tax Act, Article 5 (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 74Nu138 delivered on March 11, 1975, 85Nu59 delivered on June 25, 1985

Law School aluminium Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Director of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 88Gu5329 delivered on November 28, 1988

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The court below held as follows: (a) the Plaintiff was a foreign-invested corporation that mainly carries on the manufacturing of Aluminium and the business of processing and selling the same products with the permission of the Minister of Finance and Economy under Article 13(2) of the Foreign Capital Inducement Act from May 19, 1982, that the Plaintiff acquired the shares of this case as KRW 1,00,000 per share price of KRW 50,000,000; (b) however, the above non-party company continued to engage in its business activities; (c) since the pressure from the principal bank was increased by the credit management regulations at the time, the merger was examined as a reorganization plan, and the Plaintiff was to transfer the shares of this case to the non-party Linlin beverage Co., Ltd. on December 31, 1983; and (d) the transfer value cannot be viewed as a legitimate transfer value of shares of this case as KRW 246,400,000,00,000,000.

Article 16-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 1517 of March 20, 1982) provides that where the market price under Article 40(1) of the Decree, Article 41(1) of the Decree, and Article 46 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act is unclear, it shall be based on the market price assessed by the reliable appraisal institution, or the appraised value by applying mutatis mutandis the provisions of Article 5(2) through (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act, and Article 5(5)1(b) (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 6644 of April 24, 1973) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that the stocks not listed on the Stock Exchange shall be based on the net asset value of the corporation concerned, which is based on

However, according to the net asset account statement for appraisal of stocks of the Nonparty, a certified public accountant, cited by the court below, could find that the net asset value of the manufacture business is not included in the net asset value in assessing the net asset value of the manufacture business. As such, the issue of whether the manufacture business is included in the net asset value, and the manufacture business license is a kind of financial license, and it is not a creation of new rights, but merely a mere anti-private interest, and the profits of the person who obtained the license for the manufacture business are protected pursuant to the provisions of the Liquor Tax Act (see Supreme Court Decision 74Nu138, Mar. 11, 1975). Although the transfer of a manufacture business license under the Liquor Tax Act is not recognized, it is not possible for the existing license business operator to voluntarily cancel the license with the supplementary license system under the National Tax Service order and indirectly allow the transfer of the license by granting the license to the same manufacturing business operator, and the new license for the manufacture business operator is not able to obtain the above net asset value of the license by misunderstanding the above net asset value of the license.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion by the assent of all participating Justices, in order to evaluate the reasonable value of the shares of the above non-party company transferred by the plaintiff and to examine whether it differs from the actual transferred value, and whether it constitutes wrongful calculation.

Justices Park Yong-dong (Presiding Justice)