Suwon District Court-2014-Gu 60086 ( November 24, 2015)

In the case of stocks held by the largest shareholders, etc., it is reasonable to add the assessed value of the increase in the value of the stocks because it is reasonable to attach the ‘management rights premium'.

Even if shares issued by small and medium enterprises are shares held by the largest shareholders, it is natural that the accounting firm calculates the value of the shares of this case by adding the appraised value of the shares held by the largest shareholders, etc. as it is reasonable to attach a "management rights premium" to the shares held by the largest shareholders.

2015Nu72063. Revocation of the disposition of revocation of notice of change in income amount

Aaa Company

Deputy Director of Central Tax Office

Suwon District Court Decision 2014Guhap60086 decided November 24, 2015 (Kukkiwon)

July 14, 2016

August 25, 2016

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. On March 10, 2014, the Defendant’s notice of change in the income amount ○○○ is revoked, where the type of income that the Plaintiff had against the Plaintiff was the bonus, the year to which the income belongs, the amount of income in 2012, the amount of income in 2,544, 420,000,

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Partial citement of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, and it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, so it is accepted by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Parts used for cutting.

��제1심 판결문 제5면 제4행의 "제89조 제1항 제2호"를 "제89조 제2항 제2호"로 고친다.

��제1심 판결문 제7면 제3행의 "아닐 뿐만 아니라,"를 "아니다."로 고치고, 그 다음 부터 제11행까지를 삭제한다.

��제1심 판결문 제8면 제4행부터 제9면 제4행까지를 아래 내용으로 고친다.

On the other hand, when the Plaintiff purchases the instant shares from ○○○○ related party, the Plaintiff paid 750,000 won per share higher than 65,186 won per share, which is the appraised value of the market price pursuant to Article 89(2)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, as trading price. However, as seen above, the following circumstances revealed by adding the aforementioned facts and the entire arguments, i.e., the Plaintiff received an appraisal of the instant shares from 2 accounting corporations in order to calculate the appropriate sales price of the instant shares, which are non-listed shares at the time of the instant transaction. In view of the fact that: (a) each of the above accounting corporations assessed the value of the instant shares by adding the appraised value of the instant shares to 30,000 won per share; and (b) even if the shareholders, etc. purchased shares, it is unreasonable to view the Plaintiff’s sale price per share as the market price per share of the instant shares as the market price per share; and (c) the Plaintiff’s sale price per share of the instant shares, which is a special relationship.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted with due reasons, and since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, the plaintiff's appeal shall be accepted, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the disposition of this case shall be revoked as per Disposition