Whether the time of donation of the shares of this case and the method of stock appraisal

The key amount of the instant case cannot be seen as a "determined value as a right to be paid by a foreign company as of the date of donation of the instant shares."

Article 60 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act:

Article 63 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 8,881,720 against the Plaintiff on February 11, 2004 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, the mother of the Plaintiff, donated 2,00 shares of the non-party ○○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “non-party ○○”) to the non-party 1,00 shares (hereinafter referred to as “the shares of this case”), and assessed the shares of this case as KRW 8,357 on June 30, 199, and reported and paid KRW 1,054,260 on June 30, 199.

B. On April 1, 1999, the Defendant: (a) calculated the price per share of the instant shares in accordance with the Net Asset Value Act by re-Adjustment of assets and liabilities, such as by regarding the amount of KRW 1100,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00

Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 3-1, 23, Gap evidence 4, 6, Eul evidence 1, 2 and 3, and Eul evidence 6.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

The defendant asserts that the disposition of this case, which added the value of the shares of this case, is legitimate, because the plaintiff received the shares of this case in the status of increase in the assets of the non-party company, and even if not, the amount of the issue of this case falls under the value already determined before the plaintiff received the shares of this case, and the disposition of this case was made by adding it to the appraised value of the shares of this case. Accordingly, the plaintiff did not deposit the amount of this case to the non-party company, but did not donate it to the non-party company, even though it did not so, the non-party company did not hold the right to determine the amount of the issue of this case before the plaintiff received the shares of this case before it received the shares of

(b) Related statutes;

Article 60 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6048 of Dec. 28, 1999) as the principle of evaluation, etc.

(1) The value of property on which an inheritance tax or gift tax is levied under this Act shall be the market price as of the date the inheritance commences or the date of donation (hereinafter referred to as the "date of appraisal"). In such cases, the value appraised by the method of appraisal stipulated in Article 63 (1) 1 (a) and (b) (excluding cases falling under the provisions of Article 63 (2))

Article 23 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16660 of Dec. 31, 1999) acquiring time of donated property

(2) In the application of the provisions of paragraph (1), where the donated property is a stocks or equity shares (hereafter in this paragraph, referred to as “stocks, etc.”), it shall be deemed that the donee has acquired such stocks, etc. on the date objectively confirmed that the payment of dividend, or the exercise of shareholder’s right, etc. has been delivered: Provided, That in case where the address, name, etc., of the acquisitor are entered in the stockholders stockholders list or the stockholders’ list pursuant to the provisions of Article 337 or 557 of the Commercial Act before such stocks, etc. are delivered,

Article 17 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 79 of May 7, 199) shall be evaluated as unlisted stocks.

(3) The method of deducting or adding the assets or liabilities of the corporation concerned in the evaluation of other assets and liabilities, such as the deferred assets reserve, the appropriation fund, etc. under the provisions of Article 55 (2) of the Decree, shall be as follows:

1. The value of a right to be paid as of the evaluation base date shall be calculated by adding it to the assets;

C. Determination

(1) The above evidence and evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, 8, 9, 10-1, 2, 14, 15, 5, 8 through 16, 17-1, 2, 18-1, 18-5, 17-2, 18-1, 18-5, and 10-1, 2, 18-2, 18-2, 18-2, 1, 2, and 10-1 through 5, are followed by the witness Kim-○’s testimony, and 10-2,

① Around March 24, 1999, the ○○○○○, a representative director of the non-party company, prepared a financial restructuring plan to improve the financial structure by repaying the debt to the financial institution of the non-party company with the non-party company at KRW 2.3 billion, which sold the common property of the non-party company’s husband to the non-party ○○○○, and obtained each approval of the ○○○○○○, a around 27th day of the same month, around the same month;

② Meanwhile, on the 12th day of the same month, the 13th day of the same month, 80 million won on the 31st day of the same month, 40 million won on the 31st day of the same month, 110 million won on the 1st day of April of the same year, and the fact that the 1.1 billion won on

③ The Plaintiff donated this case’s shares to the Dozo○○○.

④ The defendant may recognize the fact that the issue amount of this case deposited in the non-party company on April 1, 1999 was already included in the appraised asset on or before March 31, 199, under the premise that the right is finalized, and thus, it is not believed that part of the testimony by the non-party ○○ witness was made, and it is insufficient to reverse the statement of the evidence No. 7 (the gift contract of 2.3 billion won, including the issue amount of this case stated as the "the date of preparation," and there is no other counter-proof. According to the above facts, according to the above facts, the issue amount of this case was donated to the non-party company on April 1, 199.

Furthermore, we examine the time when the right to the issue amount of this case became final and the donation date of this case.

(3) First, according to Article 60(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6048, Dec. 28, 199; hereinafter “the Act”), the value of the property on which the gift tax is levied shall be the market price as of the date of donation. In this case, the value assessed by the method of appraisal under Article 63(1)1(a) and (b) shall be deemed to be the market price. According to Article 17(3)1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act, the right established as of the base date of appraisal shall be added to the assets. The above ○○○○○○○○○○○○ Bank’s sale of real estate and the above ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Bank’s sale of real estate around March 12, 199, and thus, the above ○○○ Bank’s sale of real estate and the above ○○○○ Bank’s sale of real estate at the same time with the above ○○○○○○○○ Bank’s sale of financial structure.

(4) Next, we examine the donation date of the instant shares.

According to Article 23(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, where the donated property is a stock, the donee shall be deemed to have acquired the relevant stocks, etc. on the date objectively confirmed by payment of dividends or exercise of shareholder's rights: Provided, That in cases where the date of receiving the relevant stocks, etc. is unclear or the name, etc. of the acquisitor is entered on the register of stockholders or the register of members pursuant to Article 337 or 557 of the Commercial Act before receiving the relevant stocks, etc., the transfer date or entry date

According to the evidence No. 4, No. 5-1 to No. 4, No. 4, No. 4, No. 19, and No. 19, the plaintiff prepared a donation contract under which ○○○○○○ is to receive the shares of this case from ○○○○○○ by April 1, 199, and the list of shareholders of the non-party company was prepared on April 1, 199, and the date of donation under the "Gift Tax Base and E.O. 1, 1999," which was submitted by the plaintiff to the defendant was stated on No. 39, No. 99, which was originally stated on the "○○○○○○○'s Tax Base and E.O. 9, which was the date of this case's tax investigation, was stated on No. 199, Mar. 31, 199; however, the defendant stated on No. 99, No. 1999, Nov. 27, 199.

(5) If so, as of March 31, 1999, the date of donation of the shares of this case, the right to the issue amount of this case cannot be deemed to have been determined, it cannot be included in the appraisal assets. Thus, the disposition of this case against this cannot be included in the appraisal assets. The plaintiff's above assertion is justified.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition.