Seoul Administrative Court 2009Guhap54215 ( October 15, 2010)

Seocho 209west 2102 (Law No. 9.17, 2009)

The propriety of the disposition that denies transaction example and evaluates it as a supplementary evaluation method in the evaluation of unlisted stocks

The disposition that is assessed as a supplementary method because it is difficult to view that there was a free transaction between many and unspecified persons in view of the fact that two shareholders have transferred the same day in accordance with the face value, and that it is a transaction between the representative director and the executive officers and employees.

2010Nu14239 Revocation of Disposition, etc. of Imposition of Gift Tax

○ ○

○ Head of tax office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2009Guhap54215 decided April 15, 2010

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The decision of the court of first instance is revoked. In the first instance, the defendant's disposition of imposing KRW 336,20,620 on the plaintiff on September 7, 2005 against the plaintiff on January 6, 2009 (the "statement on January 12, 2009" seems to be clerical error) shall be revoked. In the first instance, the defendant's refusal of filing an application for payment in kind against the plaintiff on February 24, 2009 (the "statement on February 9, 2009" seems to be clerical error) shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) it is not sufficient to recognize that the transaction value was properly reflected in the objective exchange value by only the statement of evidence Nos. 19 through 20 adopted at the court of first instance following the "6-17 of the judgment of the court of first instance"; and (b) add relevant Acts and subordinate statutes to relevant Acts and subordinate statutes; and (c) add the judgment on new arguments made at the court of first instance as stated in the part of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the addition of the judgment below as to the new argument made by the plaintiff at the court of first instance; and (d) therefore, they are cited as it is in accordance with Article 8

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion

After its establishment on August 3, 2001, the sales revenue in the year 2002 was 2.65 million won, and the sales revenue in the year 2003 was 5.4.3 million won, but the sales revenue in the year 2004 sharply increased to 9,493 million won. Thus, the appraised value of the shares of this case calculated by the average of 1.6 billion won per share under Article 17-3(1)7 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance No. 20 of April 30, 2008; hereinafter the "Enforcement Rule of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act") constitutes "where the normal sales occurrence period is less than 3 years" under Article 17-3(1)7 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. Thus, the appraised value of the shares of this case should be calculated by the average of 1.6 billion won per share under Article 56(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act.

B. Determination

In order to evaluate the value of the instant shares by the average value of the estimated profits per share under Article 56(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, it is unreasonable for the relevant corporation to follow the value under Article 17-3(1)1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act due to a temporary and preferential case where the net profit or loss for the latest three years increases normally. Article 17-3(1)7 of the Enforcement Rule of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "where the normal sales period is less than three years in the main business (referring to the largest business value of the tangible fixed assets used directly among the businesses operated by the relevant corporation)", although the sales amount for the year 202 and 2004 has increased rapidly compared to the sales amount for the year 203 of the non-party company, such fact alone does not constitute a normal sales, and there is no evidence to find otherwise that the Plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.