Early High Court Decision 2014J 3628 ( October 30, 2014)

The propriety, etc. of the disposition of evaluating the mortgaged property by reflecting the amount of the claim secured by such property.

No error exists in disposing of the assets on which a mortgage, etc. has been created under Article 66 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act by evaluating the stocks on the basis of the larger amount between the value assessed on the basis of secured claims and

Article 66 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

revocation of disposition of revocation of imposition of gift tax, etc. by Suwon District Court 2014Guhap61690

GuOOO

OO Head of the tax office

2016.23

2016.19

1. A. On May 1, 2014, Defendant OO head of the tax office revoked the part exceeding KRW 247,325,977, among the disposition imposing gift tax of KRW 286,890,820 on Plaintiff OO on May 1, 201;

나. 피고 00세무서장이 2014. 5. 1. 원고 구##에 대하여 한 증여세 459,390,590원의 부과처분 중 394,280,723원을 초과하는 부분과 증여세 355,083,360원의 부과처분 중 311,830,379원을 초과하는 부분을, 원고 김00에 대하여 한 증여세26,672,400원의 부과처분 중 24,653,338원을 초과하는 부분을, 원고 $$철에 대하여 한 양도소득세 12,886,000원의 부과처분 중 10,560,883원을 초과하는 부분을 각 취소한다.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 4/5 are assessed against the Plaintiffs, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendants.

Cheong-gu Office

On May 1, 2014, the Defendants’ imposition disposition stated in the attached Form 1 List against the Plaintiffs is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 주식회사 00종합건설(이하 '00종합건설'이라 한다)의 대표이사 $$도는 2011. 1. 31. 자신의 아들인 원고 김00에게 00종합건설이 발행한 주식(1주당 액면금액 10,000원, 이하 '이 사건 주식'이라 한다) 2,750주를, 2011. 8. 11. 자신의 이혼한전처인 원고 구##에게 이 사건 주식 25,000주를, 2011. 10. 1. 원고 구##에게 이 사건 주식 14,000주를, 2011. 10. 1. 자신의 처제였던 원고 구$$에게 이 사건 주식 20,000주를 각 명의신탁 하였다.

나. 또한 $$도의 동생인 원고 $$철은 2011. 1. 31. $$도에게 이 사건 주식2,750주를 1주당 금액을 액면금액인 10,000원으로 계산하여 합계 27,500,000원에 양도하였다.

다. 피고들은 구 상속세 및 증여세법 시행령(2012. 1. 25. 대통령령 제23527호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 '상속세및증여세법 시행령'이라 약칭한다) 제54조의 보충적 평가방법에 따라 이 사건 주식의 1주당 가액을 별지2 표1중 '1주당 평가액'란 기재와 같이 각 평가한 다음 이를 기초로 피고 AA주세무서장은 2014. 5. 1. 원고 구$$에 대하여,피고 ss세무서장은 같은 날 원고 구##, 김00에 대하여 각 구 상속세 및 증여세법(2011. 12. 31. 법률 제11130호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 '상속세및증여세법'이라 약칭한다) 제45조의2에 따라 같은 표1 중 '본세'란 및 '가산세'란 기재와 같이 증여세를 부과하였는데(이하 '이 사건 각 증여세 부과처분'이라 한다), 피고들은 위 원고들이 부당한 방법으로 과세표준을 신고하지 아니하였음을 전제로 세율 40%의 부당무신고 가산세를 적용하였다.

라. 또한 피고 ss세무서장은 원고 $$철이 이 사건 주식을 특수관계인인 형 $$도에게 저가로 양도하여 부당행위계산부인의 대상이 된다고 보고 원고 $$철이 신고한 양도가액을 부인하고, 구 상속세및증여세법 제63조, 구 상속세및증여세법 시행령 제54조의 보충적 평가방법에 따라 별지2 표1중 '1주당 평가액'란 기재와 같이 이 사건 주식의 1주당 가액을 평가한 다음 이를 기초로 2014. 5. 1. 원고 $$철에게 같은 표 '본세'란 및 '가산세'란 기재와 같이 양도소득세를 부과하였는데(이하 '이 사건 양도소득세 부과처분'이라하고, 이 사건 각 증여세 부과처분과 양도소득세 부과처분을 합하여 '이 사건 각 처분'이라 한다), 위 피고는 원고 $$철이 부당한 방법으로 과세표준을 과소신고 하였음을 전제로 세율 40%의 부당과소신고 가산세를 적용하였다(이하 원고 구$$, 구##, 김00에게 부과된 부당무신고 가산세와 원고 $$철에게 부과된 부당과소신고 가산세를 합하여 '이 사건 가산세'라고 한다).

E. The Plaintiffs filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on June 30, 2014, but all of the Plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed on October 30, 2014.

Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, Gap evidence 1-5, Gap evidence 2-1-4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. The plaintiffs

1) Claim regarding the appraisal method for each share of the instant shares

A) In assessing the net asset value per share of the instant shares in accordance with the supplementary assessment method under Article 63 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and Article 54 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, since a collateral security is established with the amount higher than the market price on the Gangwon-gun, 00, 00 Eup, 632-1, 633-6 land and buildings on its ground (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) owned by 00 total construction as the secured claim amount, the value of each of the instant real estate shall not be assessed as the secured claim amount under Article 66 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and it shall be assessed as the method stipulated under Article 61 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. Nevertheless, it is unlawful that the Defendants assessed the value of each of the instant

나) 00종합건설은 2008. 1.경 00시 00동 881-1 토지(이하 '이 사건 건축부지'라고 한다) 위에 00시외버스 공용터미널 건물(이하 '이 사건 건물'이라 한다)을 건축하기로 하는 공사도급계약을 체결하고 그 공사를 진행하여 DD이노플러스에 대하여 공사대금 2,845,969,539원의 채권(이하 '이 사건 공사대금 채권'이라 한다)을 가지고 있다. 그런데 이 사건 건축부지에 대하여 개시된 임의경매절차에서 양$$은 2009. 2. 5.이 사건 건축부지를 매수하고 이어서 00종합건설과 DD이노플러스를 상대로 이 사건 건물을 철거하고 이 사건 부지를 인도할 것을 청구하는 소송을 제기하여 승소하였다. 양$$이 이 사건 건축부지 매수함에 따라 이 사건 건물은 철거될 운명에 처하게 되어 그 경제적 가치가 상실되었고, DD이노플러스는 이 사건 건물 이외에 달리 자산이 없으므로, 이 사건 공사대금 채권은 양$$이 이 사건 건축부지를 매수한 2009. 2. 5. 회수가 불가능하게 되었다고 보아야 한다. 따라서 이 사건 주식의 1주당 순자산가치를 평가함에 있어 회수불능이 된 이 사건 공사대금 채권은 자산 가액 평가에 포함되어서는 안 된다.

In addition, since the claim for construction cost of this case was impossible to be recovered on February 5, 2009 as seen earlier, in calculating the net profit and loss per share of the shares of this case, the corresponding amount of the claim should be deducted when calculating the net profit and loss per share of the shares of this case.

Nevertheless, it is unlawful for the Defendants to assess the net asset value and net profit value per share of the instant shares by including the instant construction cost claim.

2) Claim as to the portion of penalty tax without filing the instant report and underreporting

Since the Plaintiffs did not conceal the title trust or transfer of the shares of this case, it does not constitute a failure to report the tax base or underreporting in an unjust manner. Therefore, aside from imposing additional tax due to a general non-declaration or underreporting, the Defendants’ imposition of penalty tax at a rate of 40% is unlawful.

B. The Defendants

1) The appraisal of the value of each of the instant real estate based on the secured claim amount is lawful under Article 66 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs alone is insufficient to prove that the secured claim amount exceeds the actual value of each of the instant real estate.

2) The Plaintiffs’ assertion alone cannot be readily concluded that the claim for construction cost of this case has reached an irrecoverable state, and thus, in calculating net asset value and net profit and loss value per share of the instant shares, a reasonable amount of the claim should not be deducted.

3) Even if it is recognized that the claim for the construction cost of this case was impossible to recover, this is merely the recognition that the pertinent corporation is unable to recover in light of the debtor’s asset status and payment ability, etc., rather than the legal extinguishment of the claim itself. Thus, only when 00 comprehensive construction has an accounting perception that it is impossible to recover the claim for the construction cost of this case, it may be included in deductible expenses in the business year when such accounting perception was made. As long as the 00 comprehensive construction did not dispose of the claim amount as bad debts in the business year 2009 and 2010, it cannot be automatically deducted when calculating the net profit and loss value.

3. Relevant statutes;

Attached Table 4 shall be as stated in the relevant statutes.

4. Determination

A. Method of valuation of the stocks of this case

1) Under the provision of Article 60(3) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the calculation of the value of the donated property by means of a supplementary evaluation method under Articles 61 through 65 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is limited to cases where it is difficult to calculate the market value at the time of donation of the donated property, and there is a burden of proof on the tax authority as to the fact that it is difficult to calculate the market value. The market value here refers to the objective exchange price formed through normal transactions. If there is no such transactional example or even if there is a transactional example, it cannot be deemed that the transaction value is formed by normal transactions that properly reflects the objective exchange value of the donated property, the market value of the non-listed stocks subject to donation shall be calculated in accordance with the supplementary evaluation method under Article 63(1)1 (c) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, Article 54 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu9423, Oct.

2) As to the instant case, it is not deemed that there was a transactional example that properly reflects the objective exchange values of the instant stocks, it is difficult to calculate the market price of the instant stocks. Therefore, according to the supplementary evaluation method stipulated under Article 63(1)1 (c) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, Article 54(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the weighted average of net profit and loss value assessed by dividing the weighted average amount of net profit and loss during the instant three years by the return rate of net profit and loss value, and the net asset value of the pertinent corporation divided by the net asset value of the pertinent corporation by the total number of issued stocks, may be assessed as the weighted

(b) The criteria for assessing the value of each real estate of this case, when calculating the net asset value per share;

1) The purport of Article 66 subparagraph 1 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and Article 63 (1) subparagraph 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is that, in cases where a right to collateral security is created on real estate, the amount of the secured debt is usually determined within the scope of the actual value of the real estate, if the amount of the secured debt exceeds the amount calculated by other methods, it is generally considered that the actual value of the secured debt is reasonable. Thus, in exceptional cases where the secured debt is established with a higher amount than the actual value of the real estate in question as the secured debt amount, the person liable for tax payment who claims the secured debt must prove that it constitutes such exceptional cases (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Nu2390, Jun. 26, 1990; 91Nu2137, Mar. 23, 1993).

2) In light of the above legal principles, the following facts can be acknowledged according to the health class, Gap evidence Nos. 3-1 to 4, and Gap evidence Nos. 4, and the fact-finding results with respect to theff bank of this court.

가) 00종합건설은 2007. 4. 6. 주식회사 ff은행(이하 'ff은행'이라 한다)으로부터 625,000,000원을 대출받으면서 ff은행에 00종합건설 소유의 이 사건 각 부동산과 $$도 소유였던 강원도 00군 00읍 00리 632-4 토지(이하 '$$도 소유토지'라고 한다)를 공동담보로 제공하여 채권최고액 1,170,000,000원의 근저당권을 설정해 주었다.

나) 위 근저당권 설정 과정에서 ff은행이 작성한 담보현황표에는 이 사건 각부동산과 $$도 소유 토지의 담보조사가격이 276,527,000원으로 기재되어 있고 담보인정가격은 149,325,000원으로 기재되어 있는데, 위 담보조사가격은 ff은행이 공시지가를 기준으로 지가변동률을 적용하여 자체 감정 평가한 금액이다.

다) ff은행은 이 사건 각 부동산과 $$도 소유 토지의 담보인정가격이149,325,000원임에도 불구하고, 위 부동산들의 담보 가치와 00종합건설의 신용도, 보증금액을 1,170,000,000원으로 한 00조합건설 대표이사 $$도의 연대보증까지 참작하여 00종합건설에게 위 담보조사가격을 초과한 625,000,000원을 대출해 주었다.

D) In calculating the net asset value per share of the instant shares at the time of each disposition of the instant case, the Defendants assessed the amount of the secured debt of the joint collateral security established therein, not the actual value, in proportion to the amount divided according to the value of the secured real estate.

3) According to the above facts, it is recognized that the amount of the secured claim of the right to collateral security established on each of the instant real estate was set at an amount higher than the actual value of each of the instant real estate. Therefore, in calculating the net asset value of each of the instant real estate, the value of each of the instant real estate cannot be assessed as

Therefore, in calculating the net asset value per share of the shares of this case, it is unlawful to calculate the value of each real estate of this case as the amount of secured debt of the right to collateral security established thereby.

C. Whether the claim for the construction payment of this case was impossible to recover

1) In evaluating the value of unlisted stocks, which are donated property, according to the supplementary evaluation method stipulated under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the net asset value of the pertinent corporation as of the date of donation, which is one of the elements for the calculation thereof, shall not be included in the amount of claims that are impossible to be recovered as of the date of donation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Nu9719, Mar. 14, 1995; 2005Du5574, Aug. 23, 2007). Here, whether the issue of whether the relevant claims are irrecoverable shall be determined by taking into account the circumstances related to the debtor’s property status, financing ability, social status, occupation, etc., the debtor’s ability to repay, and the company’s management status, the cause and amount of claims, and timing, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Nu

2) In light of the above legal principles, the following facts can be acknowledged if the following facts are combined with respect to the instant case’s health class, Gap evidence 6-1 through 6, Gap evidence 7-1 through 4, Gap evidence 8, Gap evidence 10-1 through 9, and the whole purport of oral argument.

가) 주식회사 gg아이알파플러스(이하 'gg아이알파플러스'라고 한다)는 2007.6. 4. 양$$으로부터 이 사건 건축부지의 매수대금으로 147억 5,000만 원을 차용하였고 위 차용금 채무의 지급을 담보하기 위하여 2007. 6. 5. 양$$에게 이 사건 건축부지에 관해 채권최고액을 190억 원으로 하는 근저당권 및 지상권 설정등기를 마쳐 주었다.

B) On January 208, 2008, galoflass contracted the construction of the instant building on the instant building site to 00 comprehensive construction. Around February 25, 2008, galoflass transferred the right to implement the project and completed the procedure for change of the name of the owner. In the process, Dnoflass succeeded to the status of the contractor for the construction contract for the instant building.

(C) Drmolass shall pay the construction cost on the basis of the 00 comprehensive construction by November 7, 2008.

Of KRW 3,445,969,539, 600,000 was repaid.

라) 한편 근저당권자인 양$$의 신청으로 2007. 11. 9. 이 사건 건축부지에 대하여 임의경매절차가 개시되었고, 위 경매절차에서 2009. 2. 5. 양$$이 이 사건 건축부지를 매수하였다.

마) 양$$은 2011. 6. 8.경 00종합건설과 DD이노플러스를 상대로 신축 중이던 이 사건 건물에서 퇴거하고 위 건물을 철거하며 이 사건 건축부지를 인도할 것을청구하는 소(이하 '철거 및 인도청구의 소'라고 한다)를 제기하였고, 2012. 11. 27. 수원지방법원 2011가합11200호로 'DD이노플러스는 이 사건 건물에 대한 법정지상권을 취득하지 못하였고, 그에 따라 위 건물이 철거되어야 하는 이상 00종합건설도 위 건물에 대한 유치권으로 이 사건 건축부지의 매수인인 양$$에게 대항할 수 없다'는 이유로 양$$의 청구를 모두 인용하는 판결이 내려졌고, 00종합건설 등의 항소가 기각되어 위 판결은 2013. 7. 5. 그대로 확정되었다.

3) 위 인정사실에 의하여 보건대, 양$$은 gg아이알파플러스가 이 사건 건축부지를 매수하고 이 사건 건물을 신축하는 사업을 하려는 것을 알면서 거액의 자금을 대여하였던 것으로 보이고, 그 사업이 성공적으로 수행되어야 대여한 자금을 원만하게회수할 수 있었던 점, DD이노플러스는 이 사건 건축부지에 대한 임의경매절차가 개시되었음에도 불구하고 그 이후에 gg아이알파플러스로부터 사업시행권을 양도받고 이 사건 건물에 관한 도급인 지위를 승계하였던 것에 비추어 이 사건 건축부지의 소유자가 임의경매로 변경된다는 사정만으로 이 사건 건물의 신축 사업이 당연히 중단될 수밖에 없다고 보기는 어려운 점, 양$$은 2009. 2. 5. 이 사건 건축부지를 매수하였 음에도 그로부터 2년 4개월 정도가 지난 2011. 6. 8.경에야 00종합건설과 DD이노플러스를 상대로 철거 및 인도청구의 소를 제기하였고, 원고는 그 소송에서 양$$의 청구를 모두 인용하는 판결이 확정된 2013. 7. 5.경까지 이 사건 공사대금 채권에 관하여 대손이 발생한 것으로 회계처리를 하지 아니한 점, 양$$은 00종합건설, DD이노플러스와의 협상을 통해 이 사건 건물의 신축에 관한 사업시행권을 양수할 제3자를 물색하는 등의 방법으로 대여한 자금을 회수하는 방안을 모색할 여지가 충분히 있고, 그 경우 이 사건 건물은 철거를 피하고 그 경제적 가치를 보전할 수 있는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 양$$이 이 사건 건축부지에 대하여 개시된 임의경매절차에서 이 사건 건축부지를 매수하였다는 사정만으로 이 사건 건물이 철거될 것으로 확정되었다거나 이 사건공사대금 채권이 회수불가능하게 되었다고 단정할 수는 없다.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion that when assessing net asset value and net profit and loss value per share of the shares of this case on the premise that the claim for the construction price of this case has been impossible to recover, the amount of the construction price of this case should be included or deducted is not appropriate without further review.

D. Determination on the additional tax portion of this case

1) Article 47-2(2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 11124, Dec. 31, 2011; hereinafter the same) provides that "where a taxpayer has a duty to report the tax base or amount of national taxes without filing a report in an unjust manner (referring to any method prescribed by Presidential Decree, by which the taxpayer violates his/her duty to report the tax base or amount of national taxes on the basis of concealing or pretending all or part of the fact that serves as the basis for calculating the tax base or amount of national taxes; hereinafter the same shall apply in this Section)", Article 47-3(2) of the same Act provides that "where there is a tax base under filing a return in an unjust manner," penalty taxes shall be imposed on "where there is a tax base under filing a return in an unjust manner". Article 27-2(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23592, Feb. 2, 2012; hereinafter the same) provides that "the method prescribed by Presidential Decree" means to obtain false entry or false entry into account books (i.

In full view of the legislative structure of Articles 47-2 and 47-3 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, the language and text of each subparagraph of Article 27(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and the legal nature of unreported and under-reported additional taxes, etc., the imposition of additional taxes in cases of unjust non-reported and under-reported and under-reported taxes is intended to impose sanctions imposing additional taxes much higher than those for under-reported and under-reported general taxes, because it is impossible or considerably difficult to impose and collect taxes in cases where all or part of the facts forming the basis for calculating the tax base or amount of national taxes are concealed or pretended. Therefore, it is difficult to see Article 27(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which explicitly prescribes cases where it can be seen as "unfair methods", which can be seen as "an unlawful method", and thus, it is difficult to see that the purpose of evading national taxes is necessary for 10 or 200 unlawful under-reported and under-reported tax base return method.

2) 이 사건에 관하여 보면, 이 사건 각 증여세 부과처분의 과세요건 사실은 $$도

의 원고 구$$, 구##, 김00에 대한 명의신탁행위이고, 이 사건 양도소득세 부과처분의 과세요건사실은 원고 $$철이 특수관계인인 $$도에게 이 사건 주식을 저가로 양도한 행위인데, 원고들이 위 과세요건사실의 발견을 곤란하게 하기 위하여 거짓 문서 등을 작성하거나 거래를 조작・은폐하는 등의 적극적인 방법을 사용하였다거나 허위의 사실을 작출하였다고 볼 증거가 없다. $$도가 원고 구$$, 구##, 김00에게 이 사건 주식을 명의신탁한 행위 자체는 허위의 사실을 작출한 것으로 부당한 방법으로 볼 여지가 있으나 이것이 부당무신고 가산세 부과의 대상이 되려면 본세인 증여세를 포탈할 목적이 있어야 할 것인데 위 원고들이 명의신탁의 증여의제로 증여세를 부담하게 된 것이어서 증여세 자체의 포탈을 시도한 것으로 볼 수 없는 이상 증여세에 대해 부당무신고 가산세 부과의 대상이 된다고 할 수 없다.

Therefore, among each disposition of this case, the amount of non-reported and under-reported penalty tax within the scope of the amount subject to the general non-reported and under-reported penalty tax (20%) is legitimate, but the exceeding portion is unlawful.

E. Determination on a legitimate tax amount

1) Where the value of each of the instant real estate is assessed by such method as stipulated under Article 61 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the net value per share as of January 31, 201 shall be 39,594 won, the net asset value per share shall be 35,115 won, the net value per share shall be 37,802 won, the net value per share shall be 39,594 won, and the net asset value per share shall be 37,522 won, the net asset value per share shall be 38,765 won, and the net asset value per share shall be 38,52 won, the net value per share as of October 1, 201, the net value per share shall be 39,594 won, and the net asset value per share shall be 36,863 won, and the net asset value per share shall be 38,501 won,501 won.

When calculating the legitimate amount of gift tax and capital gains tax on the plaintiffs based on the value per share of the stocks of this case calculated as above by applying general non-reported and underreporting penalty tax (20% of tax rate) and additional tax (0.03% of tax rate), it is stated in the column of "justifiable amount of tax" in attached Table 3 2.

2) Accordingly, among each disposition of this case, the amount stated in the “justifiable Tax Amount” column in Table 2 above exceeds the amount stated.

as the part is illegal, the part must be revoked.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and all remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.