Suwon District Court 2010Guhap9861 ( October 12, 2011)

Cho High Court Decision 2010Du0632 ( October 31, 2010)

It is difficult to deem that there was a serious violation of procedures even if there was no opportunity to request a pre-assessment review.

Even if there is no opportunity to request the pre-assessment review, it is difficult to see that there was a serious violation of procedure, and since shares are nominal trust, and it is insufficient to recognize it as there is no specific proof of window dressing accounting, a disposition imposing gift tax by evaluating shares by supplementary evaluation methods is legitimate.

2011Nu18542 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

XX

Head of Ansan Tax Office

Suwon District Court Decision 2010Guhap9861 Decided May 12, 2011

October 19, 2011

November 23, 2011

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant's disposition of imposition of KRW 245,973,00,00,000, which the plaintiff on November 30, 2009, is revoked (which is written in the complaint, seems to be erroneous).

1. cite the judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as follows, and thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

O The following shall be added to the fifth fifth decision of the first instance court:

[1] Article 81-7 of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 911, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the same) provides that a taxpayer shall be notified prior to conducting a tax investigation, and Article 81-12 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that a person who has received notice of the result of a tax investigation after completing a tax investigation may file a request for pre-assessment review. However, as seen earlier, since the Defendant conducted a tax investigation on the instant company, it is only required to make a prior notification to the instant company, and it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff should also make a prior notification. The Plaintiff’s assertion premised on the Plaintiff’s prior notification regarding a tax investigation is without merit. In addition, the Plaintiff’s assertion

O The following shall be added to the 6th judgment of the first instance court, the first instance court of which is not clearly defined below:

[Plaintiff asserted that, at the time of the adjudication by the Tax Tribunal, the Plaintiff acquired the instant shares in the name of Maximum D, OB, Jung, and JungCC by acquiring the instant shares under the name of Maximum D, OB, Jung-CC, and the Plaintiff for the transfer of the instant shares to the Maximum DD by seeking to transfer the instant shares to the Maximum DD, although the Plaintiff asserted that, at the time of the adjudication by the Tax Tribunal (the first instance court 2007 medium 4022), there was no relevant contract and there was no data that not only had been paid the price for one year thereafter, but also there was no data that had been paid the price for the instant shares in the name of the Plaintiff]

2. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.