Busan District Court-2014-Gu Partnership-2074 (2015.03)

Even if the title trust contract is terminated and returned, if the termination or decision is terminated after the deadline for reporting gift tax, it is subject to deemed donation for title trust.

In cases where Article 31(4) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (excluding money) returns the donated property (excluding money) within the time limit for report (three months) under Article 68 by an agreement between the parties thereto, the donation shall be deemed not to have existed from the beginning. The foregoing provision shall be deemed to apply to cases where the title trust of the property deemed to have been donated is terminated and returned with respect to the property under title trust

Article 60 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

Busan High Court 2015Nu21841 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

Note 00, 00, Gabling00

The Director of the Z Tax Office

Busan District Court Decision 2014Guhap20774 Decided July 3, 2015

December 2, 2016

on 02 December 2016

1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. The imposition of KRW 00,000,000 on March 12, 2014 by the head of the tax office on the Plaintiff’s right 00 on March 12, 2014; the imposition of KRW 00,000,000 on the gift tax for the year 200 on March 11, 2014 by the head of the tax office on the Plaintiff’s right 00; the imposition of KRW 00,000,000 on the gift tax for the year 200 against the Plaintiff’s right 0; the imposition of KRW 00,000,000 on the gift tax for the year 200; and the imposition of KRW 00,000 on the gift tax for the year 200 on March 12, 2014, respectively.

1. Details of the disposition;

(a) A stock acquisition agreement between 00 million and 00;

"1) 백00은2010. 8. 20. 기준 주식회사 AA종합건설(이하 'AA종합건설'이라 한다)이 발행한 비상장 주식 총 191,000주 중 177,087주(이하 '이 사건 주식'이라 한다)를 자신과 지인들 명의(백00 명의 79,198주, 윤00 명의 80,220주, 권00 명의 17,669주 AA종합건설의 주식양도인 주주 백00, 윤00, 권00(이하갑'이라 한다)과 회사 경영진을 대표하는 AA종합건설의 대표이사 김00(이하 '병'이라 한다) 및 주식양수인 유00(이하 '을'이라 한다) 간에 다음과 같이 계약을 체결한다.",2) 백00은 2010. 8. 20. 유00와 사이에, 백00이유00에게 이 사건 주식과 AA종합건설의 토목건축공사업, 조경공사업 면허권 및 경영권을 대금 3억 원에 양도하기로 하는 내용의 주식양수도계약(이하 '이 사건 계약'이라 한다)을 체결하였는바, 이사건 계약의 주요 내용은 다음과 같다.

Article 1 (Purpose)

갑과 병은 AA종합건설의 주식과 토목건축공사업, 조경공사업 면허권 및 회사경영권을 양도하고, 을은 이를 양수하는 데 그 목적이 있다.

Article 2 (Price for Transfer and Receipt) The price for transfer and takeover shall be KRW 300 million.

Article 3 (Methods of Payment of Price)

The down payment shall be KRW 100 million, and the amount of KRW 50 million shall be replaced by the leased amount on January 28, 2010, and the remainder of KRW 50 million shall be paid at the time of conclusion of the contract. The intermediate payment and the remainder shall be paid after settlement of taxes, public charges, taxes, arrears, debts, etc. by December 31, 2010.

Article 4 (Obligation) A and C shall undertake and guarantee the following obligations:

(1) A and C promise that no liability exists except for loans to mutual aid associations publicly announced to B as of the date of conclusion of a transfer agreement.

(2) A and C promise that no unpaid subcontract construction cost, material cost, labor cost, wages for executives and employees, and retirement allowances, as well as delinquent taxes, public charges (including insurance premiums) and liability provisionally attached shall be made until the appointment of the representative director of B.

(3) Before the appointment of the representative director of B, “A” and “C” promise to meet B with respect to Article 4(2) and taxes and public charges, which are incurred or imposed, regardless of the reasons, such as accounting, business process, defects, management, etc. on the ground of their causes, and to pay them to B.

(4) Any obligation (including any obligation guaranteed) incurred before August 20, 2010 shall be the responsibility of the transferor.

Article 7 (Cancellation of Contracts)

1. Each Party may rescind this Agreement by written notice to the other Party, in the following cases:

- Where there is no correction for the other party, even though the other party has given notice to the other party to correct the violation within seven days of the other party’s breach of its obligations under this contract, unless the correction is made (if it is impossible to correct the defect caused by the breach, it may be immediately rescinded without notice);

2. When this contract is terminated, the parties shall be liable for damages and restitution according to the following classification:

1. Where this contract is terminated due to a cause attributable to the transferee, the prescribed down payment shall be paid to the transferor as a penalty for penalty, and the transferee shall be all civil and criminal agencies related thereto;

shall not file an action with the Gu and shall waive it.

2. In a case where the contract is terminated due to a cause attributable to the transferor, the transferor shall jointly and severally pay to the transferee an amount equivalent to the sum of the prescribed contract deposit as a penalty.

Article 8 (Compensation for Damages)

In addition to Section 2 of Section 7 of this Agreement, the Parties shall be liable to compensate for any damage incurred by the other party in breach of its obligations or other obligations under this Agreement if any.

3) Pursuant to the instant contract, KRW 50 million, out of the down payment of KRW 100 million on the date of concluding the contract, was paid as a check, and the remainder of KRW 50 million was treated as having been paid by offsetting the loan obligation of KRW 00 on January 28, 2010.

4) After acquiring the instant shares from 000 to 100 million won out of the proceeds under the instant contract, around October 5, 2010, the transfer of the title to the instant shares was completed in the name of a person, including himself and the Plaintiffs as listed in the table, and on October 25, 2010, the title was changed from AA General Construction Co., Ltd. to '00 Development Co., Ltd.' (hereinafter “AA General Construction”) upon taking office as the representative director on October 25, 2010 (hereinafter “0 development”).

number of shares in connection with the name of shareholders under section 00

1 00 Doz. 40,000

2 Doz. 49,198

3 Plaintiff 00 Note 10,220

4 Plaintiff Park Park 00 25,000

5 Plaintiff U.S.C. 15,000

6 Plaintiff Lee 00 et al. al. 37,669

Total 177,087

B. Imposition of gift tax on the plaintiffs

1) As a result of an investigation of stock fluctuation for 00 development, the director of the tax office determined that the market price per share of the instant shares is 28,968 won [the net asset value is 37,545 won x 2] + (the net asset value is 23,250 won x 3) + 10 %) i ± 50 ± 220 ; 20 ; 250 ; 250 ; 250 ; 250 ; 250 ; 250 ; 300 ; 308 ; 468 ; 300 ; 450 ; 400 ; 450 ; 45 ; 40 ; hereinafter the same shall apply) of the instant shares under the name of the Plaintiff under the title of the Plaintiff under the title of the title of the Plaintiff under the title of the title of the Plaintiff under the title of the title of the Plaintiff under the title of the title of the title of the Plaintiff 300.

2) Accordingly, the Defendants determined and notified gift tax to the Plaintiffs based on Article 45-2 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (Presumption of Donation of Title Trust Property) on March 11, 2014 and on the 12th of the same month as follows:

(hereinafter referred to as "each disposition of this case")

Defendant for the notice period (the original notice period)

The head of a tax office on March 31, 2014, KRW 00,000,000, March 12, 2014

Park 00,000,000 won on March 11, 2014; the head of a tax office on March 31, 2014

Supreme Court Decision 200,000,000 won March 11, 2014

The head of a tax office on March 31, 2014, 200,000 won

D. The Plaintiffs appealed and dismissed the request for examination to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 11, 12, and 13 (including each number for additional evidence), witness of the first instance court, witness of the first instance court, witness of 00, and witness of 00, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. The non-existence of the title trust agreement and tax avoidance purpose

The U.S. 00 arbitrarily acquired 87,889 shares out of the shares of this case under the name of the Plaintiffs, and the Plaintiffs did not know that the title trust agreement on the shares of this case was made between the Plaintiffs and U.S. 00. Therefore, each of the dispositions of this case based on the premise that the above agreement exists, is unlawful. Even if the Plaintiffs received the title trust agreement on the shares of this case from U.S. 00, each of the dispositions of this case was unlawful, since they did not have the purpose of tax evasion.

B. Cancellation or cancellation of the instant contract

For the following reasons, the instant contract was cancelled or terminated due to Plaintiff 00’s deception or nonperformance of obligation, or terminated retroactively due to the cancellation of agreement, and as long as the instant contract terminated retroactively, the instant shares cannot be deemed to have been transferred. However, each of the instant dispositions, based on the premise that the instant shares were transferred, is unlawful as a gift of the difference between the market price and the consideration.

1) In the instant contract, Plaintiff 00 agreed to have the Plaintiff U.S. 00 liable for all the obligations arising from the cause of the Plaintiff U.S. 00’s representative director prior to his/her appointment, with the undertaking that the Plaintiff U.S. did not have the obligation to pay for the Plaintiff U.S. loan to the mutual aid association, and the Plaintiff U.S. appointed the Plaintiff U.S. 00 as the representative director of 00 development and subsequently filed a seizure and lawsuit against the Plaintiff U.S. 00 on the ground of unpaid wages, arrears, etc. Around August 30, 2011, Plaintiff U.S. declared that Plaintiff U. 0 would have cancelled or cancelled the instant contract based on the right to statutory rescission or the right to rescind the instant contract based on the Plaintiff U.S. 0’s deception or the right to rescind the contract under

2) Even if the instant contract was revoked or is not rescinded upon the right to statutory rescission or the right to rescind the contract, the Plaintiffs agreed to rescind the instant contract on or around August 30, 201, and accordingly, the instant contract was retroactively extinguished upon the rescission of the said agreement.

C. Unclaimed bonds and investment securities, which are included in the balance sheet of 00 development of over-value assessment, are assets whose recovery is virtually impossible or have no value of realization. In light of the vulnerable financial structure of 00 development, the acquisition price per the contract of this case is at a reasonable price of KRW 300 million, and the stock value assessed by the Defendant as a supplementary assessment method is excessively assessed.

3. Relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

4. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. The title trust agreement and the non-existence of tax avoidance purpose

1) Relevant legal principles

The provision on deemed donation of this case may not be applicable in cases where a registration, etc. is made unilaterally by using the name of the nominal owner regardless of the intent of the nominal owner. In such cases, if the tax authority establishes only that the actual owner is different from the nominal owner, and the burden of proof that the registration, etc. of the nominal owner was made by the unilateral act of the actual owner regardless of the intent of the nominal owner ought to be borne by the nominal owner who asserts that it was made regardless of the intent of the nominal owner (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du15780, Feb. 14, 2008). The burden of proof as to the absence of the purpose of tax avoidance lies in the nominal owner who asserts it, and the burden of proof, as the nominal owner, has obvious objective and irrelevant to the tax avoidance to the extent that it is deemed that there was no objective of tax avoidance in the title trust, and there was no tax avoidance at the time of the title trust or in the future, it ought to be proven to the extent that it does not have any doubt (see, etc.).

2) Determination

In light of the following circumstances, the actual transferee of the outstanding shares is 00 and the name of the outstanding shares is different from that of the plaintiffs, as seen earlier. The evidence stated in the above facts, as well as the evidence stated in the evidence Nos. 5 through 8, and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, ① Plaintiff’s right 00, Park 00, and Park 00 were appointed as a director around October 25, 201 with 00 and was registered as a director until August 30, 201. From 2010 to 2012, it was registered as a shareholder in the register of shareholders for three years, and ② the shareholders’ general meeting submitted to the shareholders’ meeting the power of delegation affixed with the seals No. 100, Park 00, and Park 00 to 200, regardless of the Plaintiff’s request for the issuance of a certificate of personal seal impression, and ③ there was no other evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiffs’ shares were transferred to the Plaintiffs under the Plaintiffs’ right of exchange and delivery of the shares.

In addition, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the title trust with respect to the shares in question has a clear purpose different from that of tax avoidance.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

B. Demanding cancellation or cancellation of a contract

1) Facts of recognition

A) On October 25, 2010, the U.S. had taken office as the representative director of the development project and managed 00 development projects. After having taken office as the representative director, the U.S. 00 filed several lawsuits against 00 development projects from March 25, 201 to August 201, 201, such as lawsuit and provisional attachment of claims, bonds, and payment orders against 00 development projects.

B) Meanwhile, due to the lack of money, the U.S. paid 00 million won as part of intermediate payments and remainder payments of KRW 50 million around May 201, and KRW 00 million around June 201. However, with respect to the rescission of the contract of this case as of August 30, 2011, the unpaid part payment and remainder amount of KRW 120 million up to August 201, 201, the payment of KRW 10 million out of the refund amount of KRW 10 million out of the interest amount of KRW 10 million, but the remainder of the unpaid part payment and remainder amount of KRW 120 million has not been refunded each month.

C) On August 30, 201, U.S. 00 retired from the office of the representative director of 00 development, and 00 was appointed as the representative director of 00 development. On November 11, 201, 201, 000 was appointed as the office of the representative director, and 00 was appointed as the representative director of 00 development. 00, U.S. 00 had been dismissed from the office of the representative director and managed 00 development as the actual inspection of 00 development again.

D) On March 2012, 2012, when filing a corporate tax return for the business year of 2011, 000 among the instant shares, 00,000 shares transferred in the name of 00,000 shares among the instant shares and 00,000 shares transferred to Kim Jong-type, a 000 share transfer in the name of 00,000 shares of the instant shares (No. 13-1) and the statement of transfer of shares and equity shares (No. 13-2) were submitted.

E) From December 201 to August 2014, 201, the amount of KRW 500,000 to KRW 1,100,000,000 to KRW 500 to KRW 1,100,000 was remitted once or twice a month by making the Plaintiff’s account with the Plaintiff’s wife 00 as a remitter or his wife’s wife’s wife’s wife or 00 development.

F) On October 20, 2014, when the lawsuit of this case was pending in the court of first instance, 000 and 000 reached an agreement on settlement following the rescission of the contract of this case (hereinafter referred to as "agreement on settlement of accounts of this case") and written an agreement on settlement (Evidence A No. 8-1) stating the contents of the agreement. The main contents are as follows.

2. Accordingly, 000 and 00 agree that all matters in gold part shall be settled as follows and no damages, such as penalty, shall be claimed in the future with respect to already rescinded contracts:

(a) Remaining principal: 150 million won;

(ii) Unpaid interest: 1,955,000 won;

G) On October 20, 2014, at the instant settlement agreement, the remitter was transferred from the bank account of 00 development to 00,000, KRW 156,955,000 from the bank account of 00,000.

H) On December 13, 2013, 200, '000' was received from the second investigation on December 13, 2013, '200' violated Article 4 of the instant contract. Thus, 00 submitted the letter of August 30, 201 (Evidence B No. 10-2) stating that "the cancellation of the instant contract shall be made pursuant to Article 7 of the instant contract," and each of the above statements was written retroactively from the first investigation on the oil00, which was in November 28, 2013, to August 30, 201.

[Reasons for Recognition] The aforementioned evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 17, Eul evidence Nos. 5 through 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2) Determination

A) Whether the instant contract was rescinded by the exercise of the statutory right of rescission or the right of rescission on the ground of the 000 fraud or the nonperformance of obligation

In light of the above facts and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence as above, it is insufficient to recognize that the contract of this case was cancelled on the ground of deception of 00 million, or that the contract of this case was rescinded on the ground of the non-performance of 000, or the right to rescind the contract of this case or the right to rescind the contract under Article 7 of the contract of this case on the ground of the non-performance of 00, and there is no other evidence

① In light of the fact that, until December 31, 2010 in the instant contract, the intermediate payment and remainder are paid after settling all taxes, public charges, and liabilities, etc., and the obligation incurred prior to the date of entering into the instant contract is agreed to be held liable 00,000 and 00 are anticipated to have the obligation to pay the unpaid construction cost, etc. at the time of entering into the instant contract, and the agreement is concluded to have the obligation to pay the said obligation 000.

② Even if the sum of the claim amount in a lawsuit, etc. against 00 development exceeds KRW 300,000,000,000, which was the purchase price under the instant contract, the mere fact that the lawsuit was brought against, does not have become final

③ As seen earlier, the terms and conditions of the instant contract that held 00 million won liable for the obligations of 00 development were the content of the instant contract, and the payment order, etc. was filed against 00 development from March 201 to April 201, 201, and the Han Tech General Construction, which was operated by 000, applied for commencement of rehabilitation proceedings on or around April 201, but thereafter paid 80 million won to 00 million won out of the intermediate payments and remainder, the fact that a lawsuit was filed against 00 development, etc., cannot be said to have been revoked or intended to rescind the instant contract on the grounds of deception or nonperformance.

④ According to the instant contract, the contractual obligation of 000, relating to the 00 development’s obligation, is liable for the repayment of the obligation of 00 development accrued prior to the conclusion of the instant contract. It is difficult to deem that 0000, solely on the sole ground that a lawsuit was brought against 00 development, was performed with the condition under which the contractual obligation should be performed. Furthermore, even if the contractual obligation is fulfilled, there is no evidence to prove that 00,000 expressed the intention not to perform the obligation of 00 development’s obligation, or that 00,000, notified 00 to discharge the obligation of 00 development’s obligation for a considerable period of time, even though the contractual obligation was fulfilled.

B) Whether the instant contract was rescinded by agreement

(1) In full view of all the circumstances acknowledged in light of the aforementioned facts of recognition and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is reasonable to deem that the instant contract was rescinded by agreement between 00 and 00 on August 30, 2011.

① In light of the fact that around August 30, 201, U.S. 00 retired from the office of the representative director of 00 development and thereafter 00 re-operatings the development of 00, the instant contract is deemed to have started to operate 00 development from around August 30, 201 to receive a refund of 00 development’s management rights and shares, and 00 development from around August 30, 201.

② From December 2, 2011 to the date the instant settlement agreement was reached, the instant settlement agreement was concluded between 00 and 00 on several occasions to the 00 side. On October 20, 2014, the instant settlement agreement was concluded to complete the settlement following the rescission of the instant contract.

③ Since August 30, 2011, the entry of the instant shares into the name of 40,000 and 49,198 shares totaled 89,198 shares, 00 shares, and Kim 00 shares, which were changed into the name of 00 shares.

(2) On this point, the Defendants asserted that the rescission of the agreement on the instant contract by 00 and 000 was in collusion to evade high-amount tax, and that it cannot be deemed a normal rescission of agreement. However, the evidence alone presented by the Defendants is insufficient to recognize that the rescission of the agreement on the instant contract by 00 and 00 was merely a fictitious act committed without substance for the purpose of unfairly reducing the amount of tax imposed on them, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

C) Whether the instant disposition following the rescission of the agreement on the instant contract is lawful

(1) Article 31(4) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that “In cases where the donated property (excluding money) is returned by an agreement between the parties concerned within the return deadline under Article 68, the donation shall be deemed never to have been made: Provided, That the same shall not apply to cases where the tax base and tax amount are determined pursuant to Article 76 before the return is made.” For the following reasons, Article 31(4) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act applies to cases where the agreement on transfer is rescinded and the return is returned upon the termination of the agreement on transfer

(1) Even if a gift contract was rescinded before there was a taxation on the gift, if the return was not made within the deadline for filing the gift tax under Article 68 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (within three months from the last day of the month to which the date of donation belongs), or if the donation contract was rescinded after the above deadline for filing the return, the effect of imposing the gift tax already imposed shall not be asserted (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu1884, Jul. 11, 1997).

② Article 2(3) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that “The term “the transfer of tangible or intangible property (including the transfer of property at a remarkably low price) by which economic value can be calculated, regardless of the name, form, and purpose of the act or transaction, or an increase in the value of another person’s property by means of a direct or indirect method.” As can be seen, the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that “the transfer of property at a low price” is a gift tax which is recognized as a gift regardless of the name, form, and purpose of the transaction or the act or the transaction’s transfer of property at a low price. In addition, Article 35 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that “the calculation of the value of the donated property under the premise that the transfer at a low price and the market price are recognized as a donation under Article 2(3) of the latter Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and it is reasonable to apply Article 31 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act as well as Article 35(4) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act.

(3) Where property at a low price is returned in accordance with the cancellation of an agreement on a transfer contract, the same shall not apply to cases where the donee returns the donated property upon a low price transfer, in terms of the fact that the donee will no longer hold the donated property any longer.

④ Supreme Court Decision 2011Du8765 Decided September 29, 2011 ruled that Article 31(4) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act may apply to cases where a title trust is terminated and returned with respect to a title trust property deemed a donation under Article 45-2 of the same Act.

(2) As seen earlier, the U.S. concluded the instant contract on August 20, 201 and accepted the instant shares on October 5, 2010, and completed the opening of the name of the instant shares under one’s own and other persons’ name. The instant contract was revoked by agreement around August 30, 201, when about 10 months elapsed from the said transfer date. This constitutes a case where donated property is returned by agreement after the expiration of the deadline for filing the gift tax under Article 68 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and the Defendants still impose gift tax on the Plaintiffs notwithstanding the cancellation of the agreement under Article 31(4) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. Accordingly, this part of the Plaintiffs’ assertion is groundless.

(c) The assertion that the value of shares has been excessively assessed;

1) Relevant legal principles

In the case of unlisted stocks with less market value, where there is a fact that they are traded, the value of the stocks shall be evaluated by considering the market value as the market value and shall not be evaluated by the supplementary evaluation method stipulated in the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. However, since the market value means the objective exchange price formed by the general and normal transaction, in order to be recognized as the market value, the circumstances should be acknowledged that the relevant transaction is made in a general and normal manner and properly reflects the objective exchange value as at the date of donation (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du26988, Apr. 26, 2012).

2) Determination on the instant case

For the following reasons, the Defendant’s calculation of the market price of the instant shares is lawful. Meanwhile, it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence No. 29 and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs alone are insufficient to recognize that the value of the instant shares calculated by the supplementary evaluation method under the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act was excessive, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Accordingly, this part of the Plaintiffs’ assertion is without merit.

① Article 60(1) and (2) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act explicitly excludes the appraisal value of non-listed stocks from the value recognized as the market price under the latter part of Article 60(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. The purport of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act excluded the appraisal value of non-listed stocks from the market price recognized as the market price due to different appraisal methods for non-listed stocks is to be integrated into a supplementary assessment method prescribed by the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act as of the date of donation, and the market price is difficult to derive the market price under the former part of Article 60(2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act as prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as expropriation price, public sale price, and appraisal price. The purport of the exclusion of the appraisal value of non-listed stocks from the market price recognized as the market price under the latter part of Article 60(1)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is to prevent a different appraisal method for non-listed stocks from being calculated.

② There was no case of trading the instant shares other than the instant contract between 00 and 00. Meanwhile, according to the statement in the evidence No. 29, an appraiser’s 00 is 8,474 won per share in consideration of the actual financial status of 00 development. The appraised according to the supplementary evaluation method under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, taking into account the actual financial status of 00 development, is 16,815 won per share. However, the above appraisal result constitutes 00 under the circumstances after the date of donation, i.e., the 00 development was evaluated by reducing the aggregate of the bad debt amounts treated from January 2, 201 to December 31, 2013, and it is difficult to recognize that there was no other evidence to acknowledge that it was objective and exchange value of the instant shares at the time of the appraisal date. Therefore, the current market price of the instant case constitutes 60 million won under the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act.

③ As of October 5, 2010, the date of donation, the Defendant confirmed the net asset value of 00 development by analyzing the statement of financial position of 00 development as of October 5, 2010 and the president of each account. Meanwhile, according to the evidence No. 8-1 and No. 2 of the evidence No. 8-2, the Defendant may recognize the fact that the Defendant defaulted on December 17, 2010, and the 00 Development Co., Ltd. closed its business on March 31, 2012. However, the financial status of a corporation whose business is in progress is changing from time to time due to external factors, such as its business performance and market change. As seen earlier, it is difficult to recognize the result of appraisal by the appraiser 00 at the time of the date of appraisal as an objective and specific exchange price of the stocks of this case. It is difficult to deem that there is no evidence to acknowledge any error in calculating the asset value of the instant stocks by the Defendant’s supplementary assessment method and calculating it differently from its asset value.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance is justified, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.