Suwon District Court-2015-Guhap-68377 (2016.08)

The lack of evidence to acknowledge the plaintiff's assertion that stock value should be re-calculated by reflecting the window dressing accounting;

The data submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that there was a window dressing accounting as alleged by the Plaintiff, so there is no illegality in the disposition of this case which assessed the value of the shares based on the financial statements submitted at the time.

Article 39 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 11130, Dec. 31, 201)

2016Nu6785 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax, etc.

Gu*

*The Director of the Tax Office

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 imposition of KRW 156,314,520 on November 10, 2014 by the Defendant against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Quotation, etc. of judgment in the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for supplementing or adding the judgment as follows 2. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Supplement and addition of judgments;

The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the instant disposition that assessed the stock value based on the corporate accounting books of this case, which did not reflect the window dressing accounting, was unlawful, since the instant corporation performed window dressing inventory assets from 2008 to 2011 by omitting retirement benefit appropriation liabilities.

However, as recognized in the judgment of the first instance court cited by this court, the burden of proving the net asset value is, in principle, to the tax authority. However, in calculating the net asset value of the relevant corporation as of the date of transfer, exceptional circumstances, such as the situation where the assets of the relevant corporation are different from the statement of financial position or the case where the assets of the relevant corporation exist or are in calculating the net asset value of the relevant corporation, shall be the person liable for tax payment disputing this. It is insufficient to recognize that the instant corporation had carried out a

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the first instance court with the same conclusion is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.