Plaintiff (Attorney Park Young-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of Yongsan District Tax Office (Attorney Cho Yong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

July 14, 2005

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2004Guhap17587 decided Oct. 27, 2004

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of gift tax of KRW 539,959,940 against the Plaintiff on October 13, 2003 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

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

The reasoning for the court's explanation on this case is as follows, except for adding the following judgments as to the defendant's argument in the court of first instance following the 8th judgment of the court of first instance, the reasoning for the court's explanation is as stated in the column for reasons of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is accepted by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420

Parts added at the trial;

According to Article 49(1)3 of the former Enforcement Decree, the Defendant asserts that the public auction price is included in the market price in a case where there is a public auction for the pertinent property, and that the sale price of this case is not the stock itself of this case, which is the pertinent property, but the sale price of this case, which is paid in kind by inheritance tax, shall not be the market price of this case.

However, the term "market price" as defined in Article 60 (2) of the Act refers to the value that is generally established when a free transaction takes place between many and specified persons, and since its concept is unspecified and broad scope, it includes the amount that is recognized as the market price under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, such as the expropriation, public sale price, appraisal price, etc. as well as the limited meaning that it is included only in the market price, and it is merely an example of the market price as defined in the law, as well as an example of the market price as defined in the law. In light of the above, the expression "as to the property," is used equally in Article 49 (1) 1 and 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, the free contract price of this case is not the stocks itself, but it is equivalent to the public sale price, and thus, it shall not be accepted.

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

Judges Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Judge)