District Court-2014-Guhap7614 (O4. 14)

Revocation of Disposition Imposing Gift Tax

Since the appraised value of the shares is at least zero won or is much lower than the book value, the book value must be the book value unless there is a justifiable reason. Thus, there is no difference between the net asset value per share and the appraised value of the shares based thereon.

The contents of the judgment are the same as attachment.

Article 64 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

2015Nu41410 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

AA

BB Director of the Tax Office

on October 26, 2015

on December 23, 2015

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 disposition of imposition of gift tax of KRW 561,262,530 against the plaintiff on December 1, 2012 by the defendant shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment on the plaintiff's assertion that has been repeatedly emphasized or added in the trial under Paragraph 2 below, and therefore, it is consistent with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional parts

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In order to assess the value of the instant shares, the following should be considered: (a) to assess the value of the instant renewable technology, Article 64(2) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, Article 59(5) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and Article 59(5) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act should be applied; and (b) even if the assessed value is less than the book value of the instant renewable technology, it constitutes “justifiable cause less than the book value under Article 55(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act,” and thus,

Nevertheless, the Defendant deemed that the CCC purchased the instant renewable technology, and based on Articles 60(3) and 64(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and Article 59(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, assessed the value of the instant shares based on the book value of the reproduction technology of this case 3,320,000,000 won, and thus, the instant disposition was unlawful.

B. Determination

(1) Article 63 (1) 1 (c) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and Article 54 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provide that the value of unlisted stocks shall be the weighted average value of net profit and loss per share and the net asset value per share, and among them, the net asset value shall be the value calculated by dividing the net asset value of the corporation by the total number of issued and outstanding shares. Article 55 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that the net asset value of the corporation as of the base date of appraisal shall be the value calculated by deducting liabilities from the book value assessed under Articles 60 through 66 of the Act, and that the net asset value is below zero won. In this case, since the value assessed under Articles 60 (3) and 66 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is less than the book value of the corporation to supplement the book value, it does not appear that the value of the corporation is less than the book value of the corporation to supplement the book value.

2) In light of the above legal principles, the assessed value of the instant recycling technology by the method asserted by the Plaintiff is KRW 0,00 or less than the amount of the account book, and the value of the instant recycling technology should be the book value of the instant recycling technology, unless there is any justifiable reason, pursuant to Article 55(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. However, just cause under Article 55(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act exists merely because the assessed value by the supplementary method is less than the book value, and there is no other evidence to support that there is any other justifiable reason. Accordingly, the book value of the instant recycling technology is KRW 3.32 billion, the book value, and there is no other evidence to support that there is a justifiable reason.

Ultimately, even by the method alleged by the Plaintiff, the value of the recycling technology of this case should be the book value. Therefore, deeming the value of the recycling technology of this case as the book value of 3.32 billion won per share of the CCC and determining the net asset value per share of the CCC and the appraised value of the stock based thereon is justifiable.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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