Seoul Administrative Court 2007Guhap40298 ( November 04, 2008)

Cho High Court Decision 2006No4016 (Law No. 30, 2007)

In calculating the gift profits from listing stocks, etc., if the stock option is waived, whether the acquisition value is applicable.

Even if there is a substantial condition or relationship between the acquisition of stocks and the stock option, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff’s waiver of existing stock options falls under “acquisition value of stocks by way of contribution,” as of the date of acquisition, after deducting the profits from the actual increase of acquisition value and corporate value per stock as of the date of acquisition from the assessment value per stock as of the date of acquisition.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Purport of claim

Defendant’s disposition of imposition of gift tax amounting to KRW 1,416,716,310,00,000 against the Plaintiff on August 1, 2006, shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

It is the same as the disposition.

1. A part citing a judgment of the first instance;

The court's reasoning for this case is that '10,000 shares' in the second section of the second section of the judgment of the first island is '10,000 shares', '10,000 shares' in the second section of the second section of the judgment of the court of first instance is '10,00 shares', '1' in the second section of the suspension is '10,000 shares', '1' in the third section of the suspension is 'investment company', '4th to 4th chapter' is '20, '20', 'the inside government' in the fourth and seventh 7th 'the fourth 19th 'the first 'the first 'the second 'the second 'the second 'the second 'the second 'the second 'the second 'the second 'the second 'the second 'the second 'the appraisal fee', 'the second 'the second 'the second 'the 'the second 'the 'the second ' is cited.

2. The damaged part;

4) Determination on the fourth ground

A) First, with respect to the Plaintiff’s waiver of the stock options on the condition that it acquires the instant shares from the same group of factors similar thereto or for the same consideration, the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the following factors: ① the Plaintiff’s waiver of the stock options against the Plaintiff is an individual group of factors similar thereto; ② the other party who renounced the stock options against the Plaintiff is a juristic person of the non-party company, and ② even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, it is difficult for the Plaintiff to additionally grant an option to purchase shares to the non-party company’s employees, including the Plaintiff, for the purpose of raising their desire to work; ② the Plaintiff’s transfer of shares to the meaning of the stock options to the non-party company, and the Plaintiff et al. acquired shares more than the number of the existing stock options, which were accepted by the Plaintiff et al. for the waiver of the stock options than the number of the stock options to be transferred to the non-party 1 and the Plaintiff et al. (the Plaintiff et al. may not be deemed to have established the conditions or the relationship with the Plaintiff’s new stock options.

B) Even if there is a de facto condition or price relationship between the acquisition of the shares in this case and the stock option, Article 41-3(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, Article 31-6(3) and Article 31-6(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provide that the deduction of the acquisition value per share as of the date of acquisition and the actual certification of the value of the company as of the date of acquisition shall be regarded as the donated profit, and it is difficult to view that the waiver of the existing stock option in the company other than the plaintiff's company constitutes "acquisition value" of the shares in this case.

C) Therefore, there is no reason to see the Plaintiff’s partial heading.

3. Conclusion

If so, it is reasonable to dismiss the plaintiff's claim without reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair on the basis of the conclusion of the decision, so the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed, and it is identical to the disposition.