Seoul Administrative Court-2015-Gu Partnership-71822 ( October 20, 2017)

Cho-2014-west-1593 (Law No. 15, 2015)

In evaluating overseas non-listed stocks as a supplementary assessment method under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the defendant cannot be required to prove it.

In the evaluation of overseas non-listed stocks, the evaluation by supplementary evaluation methods under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act or by the plaintiff's appraisal report is inappropriate, and the application of first in first in first in first in second in third in third in third in third in third in third in

Article 54 of the Corporate Tax Act

2017Nu68600 Revocation of Disposition of Corporate Tax Imposition

○○○○○

○ Head of tax office

November 24, 2017

December 8, 2017

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s imposition disposition of corporate tax for the business year 2008 against the Plaintiff on October 0, 2013 as KRW 000 among the disposition imposing corporate tax for the business year 2010, KRW 000 among the disposition imposing corporate tax for the business year 201, KRW 00 among the disposition imposing corporate tax for the business year 201, and KRW 00 among the disposition imposing corporate tax for the business year 2012 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following matters to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article

○ 11. 11. Then, the following is added to the following. (Therefore, the Defendant’s argument that the reasonable tax amount for the First Disposition can be calculated based on each appraisal report of this case cannot be accepted).

The following is added to “the 15th page 15 (“the 15th page 15”).” “The latter part of Article 94(8) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, amended on February 21, 2014, merely provides the order of priority as to the financial resources of dividend income, as it is merely a mere provision of the order of priority as to the revenue sources of dividend income, which may result in a taxpayer’s tax burden increase and may be reduced, and thus it is difficult to view it as an absolute and reasonable method).”

2. Conclusion

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