(a) Method of calculating the market price of unlisted stocks;

B. The burden of proving the legality of taxation by calculating the market price as a supplementary assessment method under Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act

A. In the event that a large number of transactions such as listed stocks are traded daily, the market price will be deemed the market price, but in the case of unlisted stocks with less market value, the objective exchange value is deemed to have been appropriately reflected in the market price, and only when it is difficult to calculate the market price by any other means, the price shall be deemed the market price, and it shall be based on the supplementary assessment method stipulated in Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act.

B. The burden of proving that there was no need to select a supplementary assessment method because it is difficult to calculate the market price at the time of donation is the tax authority with the legality of taxation.

(a) Articles 34-5 and 9(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act; Articles 42 and 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act; Article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 85Nu804 delivered on February 25, 1986; Supreme Court Decision 84Nu322 delivered on November 27, 1984; Supreme Court Decision 84Nu670 delivered on March 12, 1985

[Judgment of the court below]

Head of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu654 delivered on March 3, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the provisions of Article 34-5, Article 9(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act and Articles 42 and 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the value of donated property shall, in principle, be appraised according to the market price at the time of donation. However, if it is difficult to calculate the market price, the value of donated property may be assessed according to the method prescribed in Article 5(2) through (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act,

Therefore, in the event that a large number of transactions such as listed stocks are traded every day, the market price will be deemed the market price, but in the case of unlisted stocks with less market value, where there are examples of sale deemed to have properly reflected the objective exchange value, such price shall be deemed the market price, and when it is difficult to calculate the market price in any other way, supplementary evaluation methods under the above law shall be followed (see Supreme Court Decision 85Nu804, Feb. 25, 1986).

In addition, the burden of proving that there was no need to select a supplementary assessment method because it is difficult to calculate the market price at the time of donation is the opinion of this party member (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 84Nu670, Mar. 12, 1985; 84Nu84Nu322, Nov. 27, 1984). According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the defendant's assertion that the value of the non-listed shares of this case acquired by the plaintiff is 4,303.87 won per share, based on the assessment method stipulated in Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act. (In fact, the value claimed by the defendant is the same as the amount calculated by the above assessment method) that the defendant properly reflected the objective exchange value of the shares of this case, or that it was difficult to calculate the market price by other methods, and that the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the remaining amount of the non-listed shares of this case.

In addition, even if the court below judged that the value of the shares of this case was a reasonable transaction price, it was calculated by the statutory appraisal method, in light of the records, there is no evidence to recognize it as a reasonable transaction price, and there is no effect on the conclusion of the judgment. It is groundless to

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Byung-su (Presiding Justice)