The appraisal value of stocks shall not be calculated by an audit report which is likely to have distorted financial status.

In light of the fact that there was an illegal loan by the representative director, etc., the audit report is likely to distort the financial status by the window dressing accounting, etc., and the appraisal value of stocks cannot be calculated by the audit report.

2013Guhap1607 Revocation of Disposition rejecting a claim for rectification

Park AAAA

The Director of the Pacific District Office

March 29, 2013

April 19, 2013

1. On May 10, 2012, the Defendant’s disposition rejecting the correction of KRW 000 of inheritance tax against the Plaintiff is revoked.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. EO has died on January 13, 2010, and the Plaintiff and EO have succeeded to its property.

B. On July 31, 2010, the Plaintiff and POO reported the inheritance tax base to the Defendant as KRW 000,000, and paid KRW 0000,000 for inheritance tax. On the other hand, the inherited property included 24,046 shares of the OO Mutual Savings Bank (hereinafter “O”) (hereinafter “the shares in this case”) but declared KRW 000 per share of the audit report of the OO accounting corporation published as of June 30, 2009 (hereinafter “audit report of June 30, 2005”).

C. On November 30, 201, the Defendant calculated the inheritance tax base at KRW 000, and corrected and notified the Plaintiff and GaO of KRW 000 of the inheritance tax.

D. On June 2011, the Financial Supervisory Service decidedO as insolvent financial institutions, and six months (from February 23, 2011 to August 22, 2011) in consideration of the following factors: (a) conducted an inspection on the end of the end of June 2010 with respect to theO; (b) conducted a series of deposits anticipated at the time of resumption of business; and (c) conducted inspections with customers subject to restrictions on withdrawal; and (d) the possibility of liquidity shortage.

E. On January 31, 2012, the Plaintiff and Extraordinary filed an application for rectification of inheritance tax on the ground that the value of the instant shares is zero won, and that the inheritance tax was to be refunded. On May 10, 2012, the Defendant issued a disposition rejecting the request for rectification (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Financial Supervisory Service did not have conducted an inspection on the O as of January 13, 2010, which was the date of commencing the inheritance.

F. The Plaintiff claimed a trial on July 12, 2012, and received a decision of dismissal from the Tax Tribunal on October 17, 2012.

[Grounds for Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap 1 through 4, and 7, 7, 8, and 11 (including paper numbers), and Eul 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) According to the inspection of the Financial Supervisory Service, and PO are clear that they were capital impaired at the time of inheritance commencement, and the assessed value of the instant shares is zero won.

(2) Since it is apparent that the decline in the asset value of the instant shares has been made within the deadline for filing inheritance tax, Article 23 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (hereinafter “Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”) and Article 79 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act should apply mutatis mutandis

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) The Financial Supervisory Service conducted an inspection on theO, and the financial affairs, profits, and losses of theO were specified as listed below (hereinafter referred to as the “inspection report on June 30, 2010”).

(2) OO’s president, 200 won of 600 won of 100 won of 201 was charged for violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation), while filing a verdict of conviction on February 24, 2012, and the Seoul High Court (201No2893), and the Seoul High Court (201Do12582) (2) affirmed the above part. The Court found that “O was guilty on February 24, 2012, 200, 200 won of 60 won of 200 won of 201,000 won of 200 won of 201,000 won of 2000 won of 200 won of 2000 won of 2000 won of 2000 won of 2000 won of 2000 won of 2000 won of 2012, 2012Do2582).

[Grounds for Recognition] 4, 9 (including household numbers), 3, 4, 10, 10, and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

First of all, it shall be considered whether the appraised value of the shares of this case can be calculated at the time of commencement of inheritance.

(1) Article 60 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and Article 49(1) of the Enforcement Decree thereof (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22579, Dec. 30, 2010; hereinafter the same) stipulate that the value of inherited property shall be assessed on the basis of the market price as of the commencement date of inheritance, and that the value of unlisted stocks shall be assessed on the value that is generally accepted if transactions are made freely between many and unspecified persons, and that, if it is difficult to calculate the market price, it shall be calculated on the basis of the supplementary evaluation methods in accordance with Articles 54(1), 54(2), and 55(1) and 56(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act.

(2) On June 30, 2009, there is no transaction value while the instant shares were non-listed shares, and the assessed value should be calculated based on supplementary assessment methods. Meanwhile, there was an audit report dated June 30, 2009 and an audit report dated June 30, 2010, and the Plaintiff calculated the average value of the instant shares on January 13, 2010, using the audit report prepared on June 30, 2009, which was the commencement date of inheritance. The audit report prepared on June 30, 2009, which was issued on June 30, 2009, was issued on June 30, 2009 to use the instant shares as the normal value of the instant shares, and at least 30O-O's equity capital ratio should be determined on the basis of the audit report prepared on June 30, 2009, and at least 30O-O's financial status could not be denied.

(3) Furthermore, as a matter of principle, the scope of cancellation, and the verification of the appraisal value of the shares of this case are located in the defendant, who is the tax office (in the case of the disclosure of ordinary financial statements, the taxpayer bears a jack that the taxpayer is different from the company's office, but if the taxpayer proves false disclosure, the defendant bears the burden of proving the financial status, and the plaintiff is only the shareholder.

Since it is not in the position of operating O, and the defendant does not have the evidence proving the financial status, and as long as the financial statements are recognized to have been falsely published through tax investigation, the defendant is responsible for proving the financial status of OO. ), the commencement date of inheritance is in the middle of the audit report dated June 30, 2009 and the audit report dated June 30, 2010, and it is possible to evaluate the shares of this case by the audit report dated June 30, 2010. However, according to the audit report dated June 30, 2010,O is in the form of capital, and the appraisal price of the shares of this case is zero, and there is no other evidence to verify the financial status of O as of June 30, 209, and the appraisal price of the shares of this case cannot be calculated as the disposal price of the shares of this case by the audit report on June 30, 209, or by the audit report on June 30, 2010.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition.