Whether the market value of the transaction of this case can be seen as the market value with economic rationality

If the value of the company's shares is assessed based on the net asset value as stipulated in the articles of incorporation of the company, it cannot be seen as a general market price reflecting objective exchange value because the company's continued value cannot be reflected properly

Article 60 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

Suwon District Court 2016Guhap66156 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing Corporate Tax

The transaction price falls under the market price reasonably reflected in the objective exchange value of the Plaintiff Company;

The supplementary method of assessment under the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act cannot be applied to each share transaction of this case.

3) Each of the instant shares transaction is actually conducted between shareholders in accordance with the Plaintiff Company’s articles of incorporation.

The plaintiff corporation could not trade at other prices, and the plaintiff corporation could not trade at other prices;

Each share transaction of this case causes damage to the Plaintiff Company or bears by the Plaintiff Company.

Since there is no difference in the tax amount, each of the above stock transactions from the standpoint of the plaintiff company is economic.

Therefore, it cannot be subject to the avoidance of wrongful calculation.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 2 shall be as shown in attached Table 2.

C. Determination

1) Determination as to whether a transaction constitutes a transaction between related parties [the above-mentioned A-1]

A) The former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11603, Jan. 1, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply)

C) Article 52(1) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11611, Jan. 1, 2013); and

Pursuant to Article 101(1) and (2) of the Act, the head of a tax office, etc. shall be a special officer prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Tax burden on the income of a corporation or resident due to a transaction with a supervisor shall be unfairly reduced.

(1) If it is recognized as having been made, the act of the corporation or resident or the calculation of the amount of income;

"The amount of income for each business year may be calculated regardless of the method of wrongful calculation)."

The former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24357, Feb. 1, 2013)*

Article 87(1)3 of the Act, Article 87(1)3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (Presidential Decree of January 16, 2013)

Article 98(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 11604, Jan. 1, 2013)

Article 2 subparag. 20 of the previous Act, Article 2 subparag. 20 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by the former Act, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the President*.

For the purposes of each provision of Article 1-2 (2) 1 of the Decree (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24366; hereinafter the same shall apply)

(1) The corporation and its executives and employees, and YY shall each be treated as the other party under Article 52(1) of the former Corporate Tax Act.

A related person under Article 101 (1) of the former Income Tax Act is a related person.

B) The entire pleadings in the descriptions of Gap evidence 6-1, Gap evidence 7, 8, Eul evidence 3 and 4

In full view of the purport of the articles of incorporation of the Plaintiff Company, ① Articles 10 and 11 of the articles of incorporation of the Plaintiff Company are shareholders of the Plaintiff Company.

net assets of the financial statements of the immediately preceding year to the party designated by the board of directors of the corporation or the plaintiff

the corporation's shares may be transferred only at the price calculated on the basis of the value, and that is so determined.

subject to the articles of incorporation, the Plaintiff Company is a trading price per stock of the Company, as calculated by the articles of incorporation around March 200*.

The fact that the transaction price (6, *3 won) was published in the company, ② the Plaintiff Company from April 10, 209*.

10.4. As between April 1, from 13 shareholders of the Plaintiff Company, including Plaintiff BB, etc., the shares of the Company

Food****,717 Shares purchased on the transaction price of this case, and from September 3, 200**** until March 3, 200

The fact that shares 222,717 shares are sold to Nonparty 1 and 52 other than OO again to the same transaction price, 3 Won

20* When a corporation reports 20* Business year corporate tax to the tax authority, the Plaintiff Company 20*

Shareholders*** Shares of Company*****,717 Shares of Company by transfer ** Assignment to Officers and Employees

(4) The Plaintiff Company

to take over the shares of the company at the time of the seller's exercise of the right to purchase shares and the resolution of the board of directors

As a result, the sales price was directly paid to the seller, and again, from the officers and employees of the buyer.

Transfer of shares of the company in such manner as to receive an application for treasury stock subscription, and quantity from direct buyers

It can be recognized that the company received the Do price, and that the company of the plaintiff

From the short two months to the short two months, the company held the shares as treasury shares for a period of five months, and held the shares.

In the process of transfer to the original, important transaction records, such as the time of transfer, the alternative transferee, and the number of shares to be transferred;

In addition to the fact that the case has been substantially decided, the Plaintiff Company shall have the effect of each of the instant stock transactions.

It is reasonable to view a qualitative transaction party as a transaction party.

C) Each of the instant stock transactions is governed by Article 52(1) of the former Corporate Tax Act and the former Income Tax Act.

101(1) applicable to transactions between related parties. Each of the above stock transactions is a company between related parties.

The plaintiffs' assertion of this part is without merit, which is premised on the fact that it does not fall under this transaction.

2) Determination as to whether a stock evaluation is lawful by supplementary evaluation methods [the above subparagraph (A)-2]

A) Unfair under Article 52(1) of the former Corporate Tax Act and Article 101(1) of the former Income Tax Act

(1) Article 52(2) and (4) of the former Corporate Tax Act, Article 52(2) and (4) of the former Corporate Tax Act,

Articles 88(1)3 and 89(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Tax Act shall be the value below the market price of the assets.

Doing act, etc. shall be regarded as "an act unreasonably reduced tax burden" and shall apply at this time.

The market price shall be a sound social norm and commercial practice, and a normal manner between persons who are not specially related.

such price shall be the price applied or deemed to be applied in the future, and where the market price is unclear;

Article 61 through 64 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "The value assessed by applying mutatis mutandis the same shall apply."

(2) Article 101 (1) and (5) of the former Income Tax Act, Article 167 (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act

1 Transfer of assets to a related party at a price lower than the market price, transaction with the market price.

Where the difference in the value is at least 300 million won or the amount equivalent to at least 5/100 of the market price, etc.

the market price applicable in this case shall be deemed to have been reduced unfairly, and the market price

Article 60 of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the value assessed by applying mutatis mutandis the provisions of Article 60, and the former award

Pursuant to Article 60 of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act, the value of the property shall be at the current market price, and the market price shall be at an unspecified price.

whether transactions are made freely between several persons or not generally established;

Amount (be recognized as the market price, such as the expropriation price, public auction price, appraisal price, etc., as prescribed by Presidential Decree.

shall be included in the market price, and if it is difficult to calculate the market price, the type and rule of the property in question.

Supplementary evaluation methods prescribed in Articles 61 through 65, taking into account the parent, trading circumstances, etc. (emergency head)

The method of supplementary evaluation of shares shall be the one under Article 63 (1) 1 (c) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and the same Act.

The article 54 of the Decree provides that the value evaluated as the market price shall be deemed to be the value.

In addition, the former Securities Transaction Tax Act (20**.* before the amendment by Act No. 13628 of 29, hereinafter the same shall apply).

(C) Article 7(1) of the Income Tax Act, Article 101 of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 52 of the Corporate Tax Act, or the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act.

In accordance with Article 35 of the Income Tax Act, stocks, etc. shall be deemed transferred at a price lower than the market price.

In the case of securities transaction tax, the market price shall be the tax base of securities transaction tax.

On the other hand, in the case of unlisted stocks with less market value as the shares of the Plaintiff company, that case.

the value of shares shall be assessed by considering the transaction value at the market price, if any.

(2) cannot be assessed on the basis of the supplementary assessment method under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act; or

Market price means an objective exchange price formed through a general and normal transaction, so it means that:

In order for such transaction example to be recognized as the market price, the transaction in question is general and normal.

The objective exchange values at the time of the transfer shall be appropriately reflected by the method of transfer.

The circumstances should be recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du26988, Apr. 26, 201).

3) The whole pleadings in each entry of Gap evidence 6-1, 2, Gap evidence 7, 8, Eul evidence 3 and 4

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed in the purport of the Plaintiffs’ shares 1

The transaction amount of this case (6,00 won) reported at the per share price shall be under general and normal transactions.

Since it cannot be viewed as an objective exchange price formed at the market price, it cannot be viewed as the market price, and the plaintiffs shall not be viewed as the

Each statement of Gap evidence Nos. 9 through 11 submitted is insufficient to reverse it.

A) Articles 10 and 11 of the articles of incorporation of the Plaintiff Company shall be transferred to the board of directors when transferring the shares of the Plaintiff Company.

and the counterpart to the transaction shall also be designated by the plaintiff company or the plaintiff company.

As a result, most of the company's stock transactions by 20* is limited to the Plaintiff Company.

There was a transaction between their officers and employees, and there was a transaction between some shareholders. However, there was a transaction between some shareholders.

In such a case, the current and present officers and employees of the Plaintiff Company from the former and present officers and employees.

was transferred, which is a general stock transaction between unspecified and unspecified persons who are not related persons.

shall not be deemed to exist.

B) The Plaintiff Company shall evaluate and disclose the price per stock of the Company’s stocks in accordance with its articles of incorporation.

corporation's shares are to be traded only at the publicly announced price, and such enforced price

applicable to sound social norms and commercial practices and to normal transactions between non-specially related persons; or

No "price determined as applicable" or "freely formed price" shall be deemed "price."

C) The Plaintiff Company continues to have continued to operate the business and net income for the year 20**.

The company's shares have increased, as provided by the articles of incorporation of the plaintiff company, only the net asset value of the company.

If the value of the company is assessed, the value of the company cannot be properly reflected. Thus, the transaction price of this case

It is not a general market price that reflects the objective exchange value of the shares of this company.

D) When the Defendants assess the value of the shares of a company, which is non-listed shares, the old sales tax

The net value per share and the net asset value per share under Article 54 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act shall be as prescribed by Article 54 of the Act.

The weighted average of 3 to 2 shall be calculated as *,453 won, and the above appraised value shall be reported by the plaintiff.

- -*

It is a higher price than twice the transaction price of the instant case.

4) According to the relevant laws and regulations, the Defendants’ additional assessment methods per share of the instant shares

It is legitimate to evaluate the amount as *,453 won. The plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit.

5) Determination as to the assertion that the transaction is in an economic rationality [the above-mentioned A-3]

A) The wrongful calculation father under Article 52 of the former Corporate Tax Act is deemed to be from the economic standpoint.

In that case, the economic rationality was neglected due to the calculous and unreasonable calculation of acts.

only if it is recognized, and the determination of whether economic rationality exists shall be made on the transaction.

Considering the various circumstances of the act, whether the transaction is a sound social norm or prize.

In the light of the practice, it shall be determined on the basis of whether it is abnormal in economic rationality; and

The transaction price between related parties, special circumstances at the time of transaction, etc. should also be considered (Supreme Court).

Supreme Court Decision 2008Du541 Decided October 28, 2010 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du541, Oct. 28, 201).

prescribed provisions of a wrongful calculation shall be consistent with objective facts and shall be consistent with the

Even if the act or calculation is valid and lawful, the special case prescribed by the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act;

transaction types which unreasonably reduce tax burdens between the persons concerned; or

(1) If the tax authority imposes a tax on the person with the authority deemed objectively reasonable income;

By supplementing substance over form principle, fair taxation is intended to realize fair taxation. Thus, wrongful calculation is done.

reasonable transactions between certain specially related persons in light of social norms or customs

It shall not be deemed that an economic person is normal transaction and thus reduces tax burden unreasonably.

would be adequate if there is a purpose of tax avoidance or an economic loss

not (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Du1799, Jan. 11, 2002).

B) As of the year 20* the market price per stock of the Company’s shares shall be the supplementary assessment by the Defendants.

*,453 won calculated by the method *,453 won, but the plaintiffs are more than 50% of the above reasonable market price

1. 1. b. 4) and 2. d. of each of the instant shares in KRW 6,000 per stock**3.

2) As seen in the above, ① Article 11(3) of the articles of incorporation of the Plaintiff Company is an existing shareholders.

It only specifies the method of calculating the appraisal price, and the company owned by the plaintiff company.

There is no limitation on stock transfer price. ② The Plaintiff Company does not have any limitation on stock transfer price.

Pursuant to Article 11 of the Articles of Incorporation, the transaction price per stock of the Company has been set and, in practice, has been set.

corporation's shares are traded, but the price calculated in accordance with the method provided in the above articles of incorporation;

this general and normal transaction price shall be the objective exchange price formed by such general and normal transaction, or

The provisions of the Act shall not give priority to Article 63(1)1 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, Article 54 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

③ The Plaintiff Company acquired from officers and employees, including Plaintiff BB, in 200*

22,717 shares of 22,717 shares are adequate price**,453 won per share, which is merely half of 6,000 won per share ***3 won

As a result, the amount equivalent to the difference was actually excluded from the income of the Plaintiff Company.

AAAAA Corporation

Korea-Japan 1 20* on August 1, 200 20* Transfer Income Tax of 4,520,400

In addition to the decrease in the company's tax burden, the company's shares in this case

transfer of the shares of the company at low prices throughout the period of time to the Plaintiff Company.

(2) In case of an unfair act under section 52 of the former Corporate Tax Act that disregards the economic rationality;

corporation, and at least 50% of the market price of the Plaintiff Company’s shares of the Plaintiff Company.

The act of transferring to 6,*3 won and the act of non-party KK et al. above 6,**3 won of shares of the company from the plaintiff company

(1) Article 101 (1) and (5) of the former Income Tax Act; Article 101 (1) and (5) of the former Enforcement Decree of the

It is reasonable to view that the act constitutes a wrongful calculation under Article 167 (3) 1.

6) Each of the instant cases where the Defendants applied the legal principle of denial of wrongful calculation to the Plaintiffs

The disposition is legitimate in accordance with the relevant statutes. The plaintiffs' assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

All of the plaintiffs' claims are without merit, and they are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

K Head of K tax office et al. 3

202.22

203.22

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1) Defendant KAAA service corporation: ① (1) the assessment of the corporate tax for 20*3,40 won (including additional tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) on August 3, 200**3,430,740 (including additional tax); ② the securities transaction tax for 20*530 on August 12, 2012***530, ③ the securities transaction tax for 10 on October 2012 on the same date******0,110, 2) the assessment of the capital gains tax for 20*7.5 on May 1, 200*, ② the assessment of the capital gains tax for 208, 3) on the Plaintiff SAAAAA service corporation** (3) the assessment of the capital gains tax for 200, 300, 208, 2016, 208, 196, 196, 201*

1. Basic facts

A. Status of the parties

1) On June 18, 1999, Plaintiff AAAA Service Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) was established as part of the government-invested entity’s restructuring of human resources of public enterprises, and some of the human resources of the KSA Co., Ltd. (former JJJ JS Co.) were divided.

2) Plaintiff BB, CCC, and DD (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Plaintiff BB, etc.”) sold the Plaintiff Company’s shares issued by the Plaintiff Company (hereinafter referred to as “the Plaintiff Company’s shares”) to its officers and employees in 200**.

B. The plaintiffs' shares transaction

1) At the time of incorporation of the Plaintiff Company, the shareholders were officers and employees of the Plaintiff Company who were transferred to the company during the process of a company’s separation from the Korea Electric Co., Ltd., but at the time, the said shareholders set forth, in the same form as the so-called employee prop system, restrictions on stock transactions as set forth in the articles of incorporation of the Plaintiff Company for the purpose of operating the

(3) The purchase price of stocks shall be calculated by dividing the value of net asset value of the financial statements of the immediately preceding year by the total number of stocks issued.

2) From around 2001, the Plaintiff Company calculated the net asset value per stock of the company’s stocks based on the financial statements of the immediately preceding year pursuant to Article 11(3) of the Articles of Incorporation each year, and set the price per stock to be applied to exercise appraisal rights of the company’s stocks and publicly announced

3) The trading unit price per share of the company’s shares, as notified by the Plaintiff Company annually, and the trading unit price per share of the company’s shares, are as listed below (the annual trading unit price of the company’s shares was the same, except for transactions with the face value before the settlement of accounts on February 22, 2001 and immediately before the settlement of accounts on March 22, 2002).

4) The detailed details of stock transactions between the Plaintiff Company and its executives and employees in the year 200* are as listed below, and the price of each of the above stock transactions is 6,00 won per share,**3 won per share (hereinafter referred to as the “market price of this case”).

5) Meanwhile, the net profit and loss amount of the Plaintiff Company was ***65,751 won (the net profit and loss amount per share ***88 won), *8,180,591 won (the net profit and loss amount per share **04 won), *****9,509,680 won (the net profit and loss amount per share ****20 won) in the year 20*****9,509,680 (the net profit and loss amount per share ***20 won) in the net asset value of the Plaintiff Company as of April 10, 20*208,*8,227 won in the net asset value of the Plaintiff Company as of April 10, 20*208,*8,227 won in the Defendant’s corporate tax, capital gains tax, etc.). From February 25, 200 to March 26, 201).

2) The Defendants filed a request with the Tax Tribunal to impose corporate tax and securities transaction tax listed in attached Table 1 [Attachment 1], ② the notice of change in the amount of income stated in attached Table 2, ③ each transfer income tax and each securities transaction tax in attached Table 3 [Attachment 3], and ③ the notice of imposition of each transfer income tax and each securities transaction tax (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "each of the above dispositions" in attached Table 3]. However, the Tax Tribunal dismissed the request. The date of each disposition of this case and the date of filing an objection, the date of appeal, and the date of adjudication by the Tax Tribunal are as listed below.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

1) In accordance with the articles of incorporation, the Plaintiff Company acquired shares from shareholders as publicly announced purchase price for a certain period of time and sold them at the same price to executives and employees who are willing to purchase through in-house public placement. As such, the Plaintiff Company is practically mediating the stock transaction between the Plaintiff Company’s shareholders and is not a party to the stock transaction. Therefore, each of the instant stock transaction is not a transaction between related parties, and thus, it cannot be subject to the avoidance

2) According to the articles of incorporation of the Plaintiff Company, the shares of the Plaintiff Company can be traded only with the publicly announced transaction price, and there was a case where a transaction was made between persons who are not specially related persons, and the price per share of the shares of the Company assessed by the Defendants according to the supplementary assessment method is significantly higher than the share price of the other listed companies of the same type of business.