Assumption of the burden of assertion and certification on the market price which is the standard for applying the avoidance of wrongful calculation as set forth in Article 52 of the Corporate Tax Act (=tax authorities)

Article 52 of the Corporate Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 2013Du10335 Decided September 27, 2013 (Gong2013Ha, 2006)

Korea Industrial Partnership Co., Ltd. (Law Firm branch rate, Attorneys Lee Lee-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Director of Gangnam District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 2013Nu47599 decided July 10, 2014

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The tax authority claiming the denial of wrongful calculation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Du10335, Sept. 27, 2013). Furthermore, inasmuch as the court determines the establishment of facts with free conviction in accordance with logical and empirical rules based on the social justice and the principle of equity, taking into account the overall purport of pleadings and the outcome of examination of evidence into account, the value judgment and fact-finding belong to the discretion of the fact-finding court, unless it exceeds the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, and the fact-finding and fact-finding are duly determined by the fact-finding court (see, e.g., Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act; Articles 202 and 432 of the Civil Procedure Act).

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that the instant disposition, which calculated the amount of corporate tax and value-added tax, was unlawful, on the grounds that the Defendant calculated the market price on the premise that it is identical to other products with the operating profit ratio of the golf car parts, is not an objective and reasonable evaluation method, and there is insufficient proof as to the market price of the golf car parts appraised by objective and reasonable methods, and the sales amount to

The purport of the ground of appeal disputing the above determination by the court below is nothing more than an error of the selection and value determination of evidence belonging to the free evaluation evidence of the fact-finding court and the fact-finding based thereon. In addition, even if examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the aforementioned legal principles and the relevant legal principles as well as the duly admitted evidence, the court below did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal principles as to the computation of market price under the provision on the denial of wrongful calculation under the Corporate Tax Act, failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, contrary to what is alleged in the ground of appeal. In addition, in light of the overall purport of the judgment below, it can be known that the above determination by the court below is the purport of rejecting the defendant's assertion based on the market price evaluation method under Articles 60 and 62 (2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and Article 52 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da

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

Justices Kim So-young (Presiding Justice)