Busan District Court 2014Guhap1940 (2015.07)

The disposition imposing the gift tax by deeming that the shares at issue are acquired at a low price shall be deemed legitimate.

(1) Even though the disposal agency claims that there is no gift interest due to a fall in the value of shares at the first instance, there is no error of taxation by the disposal agency which assessed the value of the shares at the market price on the evaluation base date (donation).

Article 39 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

2015Nu21377 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

The AA

00. Head of tax office

Busan District Court Decision 2014Guhap1940 Decided October 07, 2015

September 25, 2015

February 4, 2016

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke the disposition of imposition of KRW 0,000 (including additional tax) of gift tax against the plaintiff on October 0, 2013.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the reasoning for this Court's explanation is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition under Paragraph 3 below, and as stated in Paragraph 2 of Article 8 of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts in height:

A. The part of the first instance judgment No. 4 of the 4th instance court's 4th instance court's "(1)" was as to several shareholders who participated in the winners of the instant case and acquired AAA's new shares, and the method of calculating each gift tax was identical to that of the instant disposition against the Plaintiff. On the other hand, some shareholders who were subject to the imposition of gift tax as above filed a lawsuit seeking revocation against the Plaintiff (Seoul High Court Decision 2012Guhap36309, Seoul High Court Decision 2013Guhap8448, 2013Guhap848, 2013Guhap25061, 2013Guhap64257, 2014Guhap10929, 2014Guhap5267, 2014Guhap142657, 2015 decided that all of the appeals were dismissed in Seoul High Court Decision 2012Gu1426, 2012Ga136214.

B. Article 60 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "the value of the property on which the inheritance tax or gift tax is imposed under the law shall be based on the market price as of the date of commencing the inheritance or the date of donation (hereinafter referred to as "date of appraisal")," and Article 29 (4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "the calculation of this profit under paragraph (3) of the same Article shall be based on the date of payment of stock price" and " it is reasonable to interpret "the division of value shall be included in the case of "the case from the last 10th to the 11th low UU" of the judgment of the court of the first instance, and it is reasonable to interpret "the case from the last 10th place of the judgment of the court of the first instance to the case of the first 11th place of election" as also included in "the amount division" (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Du41531, Dec. 10, 2015)."

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On October 00, 2007, the Plaintiff purchased shares of the AAA in lump sum, and thus, the tax assessment should be made only one. Although the tax rate should be applied to the Plaintiff, the Defendant would pay the Plaintiff the gift tax based on the purchase of shares, and the Defendant would pay three tax dispositions by sending three different tax bases of the principal tax and the applicable tax rate to the Plaintiff as of October 0, 2013. In addition, each of the above tax dispositions on the basis that three different tax bases and the applicable tax rates of the principal tax are imposed on the principal tax, and it is difficult to understand the different reasons. Thus, the instant tax assessment by the Defendant against the Plaintiff is unlawful as the procedural defect.

B. Determination

(1) 00 won per share from October 0, 2012 to October 0, 2012 (the Director of the Regional Tax Office of 00) the Plaintiff’s tax payment notice for each of the following items: (a) the Plaintiff acquired new shares at low prices; and (b) the existing shareholders of the AA (BB 15.00%, 14.05%, and 5.95% of minor shareholders) did not appear to have been given separate notice for each of the following items; (c) the donor was not given separate notice for each of the three separate tax purposes: (d) the donor was not given separate notice for each of the three separate taxable items for each of the three separate taxable items; and (e) the donor was not given separate notice for each of the three separate taxable items for each of the three separate taxable items; and (e) the donor was not given separate notice for each of the three separate taxable items for each of the three separate taxable items.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.