Seocho 209west 1901 (OO 31, 2010)

The propriety of any disposition imposed by denying transaction example and by supplementary evaluation methods

In light of the fact that there is no evidence to prove the circumstances that the value of the stock transaction is objectively unfair, such as that the number of persons participating in the stock transaction is up to 13 persons, and that there is a special relationship between the traders, it is reasonable to determine the market price of the

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. On December 3, 2008, the head of Song-si Tax Office revoked the imposition of gift tax of 482,686,850 won on April 9, 2004, which was made against Plaintiff Won-A on the part of December 3, 2008, by the head of Song-si Tax Office against Plaintiff LA, on December 12, 2008, of 581,052,08,080 won of gift tax of 29 March 29, 2004, which was made against Plaintiff LAB on December 1, 2008, and the imposition of gift tax of 483,290,210 won against the Plaintiff on April 2, 2004.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. In ○○○○○○-dong 157-2, a real estate consulting service business is an unlisted corporation. The Defendants determined that the purchase of shares (hereinafter referred to as the “share transaction”) beyond the ○○○○○-dong 157-2 was a donation of profits from the acquisition by transfer under Article 35(2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”).

B. The Defendants calculated in accordance with Article 63(1)1 (c) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and Articles 54, 55, and 56(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and imposed gift tax on each of the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “instant disposition imposing gift tax”). In particular, the Defendants assessed 10% of the market price on each of the shares they acquired by Plaintiff B as the shares of the largest shareholder under Article 63(2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act by deeming that the shares they acquired by Plaintiff B constitute shares of the largest shareholder under Article 63(2) of the same Act.

C. The Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the instant disposition of gift tax, and filed an appeal with each Tax Tribunal, but all of them were dismissed on March 31, 2010.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3

2. Whether the imposition of gift tax of this case is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The imposition of gift tax of this case is unlawful for the following reasons.

(1) Although there was a transaction example regarding the shares outside △△, and it can be seen as the market price, the defendant calculated the market price by applying the evaluation method stipulated in Article 63 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act immediately.

(2) In light of the fact that there were a number of cases where shares were traded in 5,00 won per share, and that all of the accounting firms at the time of the instant stock transaction calculated the estimated profits per share of 0 won, there are justifiable grounds for transaction practice that determine the transaction amount of 5.00 won per share. Thus, Article 35(2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act cannot be applied to the instant stock transaction.

(3) Even if it is difficult to calculate the market price of shares beyond △△ branch, and even if the shares transaction in this case falls under Article 35(2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, in applying the evaluation method under Article 63 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the defendant is not in accordance with Article 56(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act in calculating the net profit and loss amount per share for the last three years, but in accordance with Article 56(1)1 of the same Act.

(4) Even if it is lawful to calculate the net profit and loss amount per share for the last three years pursuant to Article 56(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, it is unlawful to assess the value of officetels and commercial buildings among the assets located outside of △△ in the assessment of net asset value based on the estimated sale price.

(5) Although Plaintiff B’s acquisition of more than two shares than other Plaintiffs was merely an incidental result in the process of cutting off management, it is not related to the management premium, Defendant BB assessed the largest shareholder’s premium and imposed gift tax.

(b) Related statutes;

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

Article 35(2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that a transaction subject to taxation shall be made at a price considerably lower than the market price. In addition, the difference between the market price and the trading price under the above provision is the difference between the market price. Under Article 60(2) of the same Act, the market price includes the value which is generally recognized as the market price if such transaction takes place freely among many and unspecified persons. Article 49(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that “If there is a transaction fact on the relevant property within three months before or after the base date of appraisal, the transaction price (the sale price) shall be determined in the case where such transaction price is not only the actual value of the company’s profit or loss based on the exchange value, but also the actual value of the company’s profit or loss, the possibility of using the shares in the future and the appraisal price of the company’s share shall be determined based on the combined or non-listed share price’s net asset value, which is more than the actual value of the company’s share.

We examine the instant case in light of the aforementioned legal provisions and legal principles. The fact that stock transactions were conducted after and after the instant stock transactions do not conflict between the parties (the following part of the table is the stock transaction of this case).

According to the above facts, it is hard to prove the circumstances to recognize that the value of the share transaction was objectively unfair, such as that the shares above were traded over the period of nine months from January 6, 2004 to October 11, 2004, all of the participants in the transaction are 13 persons, and there is no objection against the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs are not parties to the transaction, and there are two occasions the transaction that are not parties to the transaction, and the price per share is 5,000 persons, and there is no other evidence to prove that there is a special relation between the 13 persons participating in the transaction above. Thus, 5,000 won which is the price per share in the share transaction of this case is ordinarily recognized as a market price if the transaction is freely achieved between many and unspecified persons under Article 60 (2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and the price per share transaction of this case is considerably lower than the market price of this case without justifiable reasons under Article 35 (2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act.

Therefore, the disposition imposing the gift tax of this case under Article 35 (2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is unlawful on different premises by evaluating the price per share exceeding △△△○ based on the securities evaluation method under Article 63 of the same Act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims shall be accepted for the reasons of the reasons and it is so decided as per Disposition.