If a long-term delay in change of entry is unilaterally changed regardless of the intention of the nominal owner, the claimant bears the burden of proof.

It is difficult to see that the transfer delay was unilaterally delayed in the event of the long-term transfer delay, and the Plaintiff’s assertion alone is difficult to reverse the presumption of tax avoidance purpose, and it is reasonable evaluation method reflecting the ordinary net profit and loss value and net asset value together with the deduction of temporary contingent special benefits in the supplementary evaluation method of unlisted stocks.

Article 41-2 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (Legal Fiction of Title Trust Property)

2015Guhap7237 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

ZZ and 37 others

Y Seven others from the director of the tax office

June 9, 2016

August 11, 2016

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

피고들이 원고들에 대하여 한 별지 처분목록 기재 각 증여세 부과처분(가산세 포함)과 연대납세의무자 지정 및 납부통지 처분을 모두 취소한다(원고 하〇〇, 하〇〇, 하〇〇, 하〇〇, 이〇〇, 김〇〇, 김〇〇에 대하여는 연대납세의무자 지정 및 납부통지 처분 있었으므로, 청구취지를 이와 같이 선해하기로 한다).

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 서울지방국세청장은 2013. 11. 21.부터 2014. 2. 14.까지 〇〇제강 주식회사(2013. 12. 1. 그 상호가 〇〇홀딩스 주식회사로 변경되었다, 이하 '이 사건 회사'라 한다)에 대한 법인세 통합조사를 실시한 결과, 원고 정〇〇 등 28명[원고들 목록 8번 내지 10번, 12번 내지 32번, 37, 38번 기재 원고들, 망 이〇〇(원고 서〇〇은 그 상속인이다) 및 망 조〇〇(원고들 목록 33번 내지 36번 기재 원고들은 그 상속인들이다), 이하 '양도인들'이라 한다]이 이 사건 회사 비상장주식 합계 551,000주(이하 '이 사건 주식'이라 한다)를 1996년 및 1997년경에 취득하여 보유하다가(1주당 취득가액 액면가 5,000원), 1999년 6월부터 2006년 2월까지 기간 동안 원고 하〇〇 등 5명[이 사건 회사의 사주인 원고 하〇〇, 그 동생인 원고 하〇〇, 그 조카들인 원고 김〇〇, 김〇〇

및 원고 하〇〇의 동생 망 하〇〇(원고 하〇〇, 하〇〇, 이〇〇는 그 상속인들이다), 이하 '양수인들'이라 한다]에게 양도하였음에도 불구하고, 양수인들이 과점주주에 따른 이사건 회사의 제2차 납세의무 및 간주취득세 등을 회피할 목적으로 주주명부 및 주식변동상황명세서상 장기간 명의개서를 하지 아니한 것으로 보아 상속세 및 증여세법상 명의신탁재산의 증여의제 규정을 적용하고, 증여의제일 현재 상속세및증여세법상 보충적 평가방법에 따라 평가한 주식가액을 각 증여재산가액으로 하여 양도인들에게 증여세를 부과하는 내용의 과세자료를 피고에게 통보하였다.

B. Accordingly, the Defendant is as listed in the attached disposition list from June 9, 2014 to July 3, 2014.

The transferor decided and notified the total amount of KRW 7,774,930,580 of the gift tax on each gift from 2005 to 2008, and the transferee designated a joint and several taxpayer and notified the transferee of the above gift tax (hereinafter referred to as "each disposition of this case").

C. The Plaintiffs filed a petition with the Tax Tribunal for revocation of each of the dispositions of this case;

On May 29, 2015, the Tax Tribunal dismissed all plaintiffs' appeals.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 24, Gap evidence 2-1 to 27, Gap evidence 3 and 4, Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

For the following reasons, each of the dispositions of this case is unlawful.

1) The assertion that the transfer delay was conducted by the transferee's unilateral act

In order to apply the provision on constructive gift of title trust property, a title trust agreement should exist. In this case, upon the commencement of the composition procedure due to the nonperformance of the company, the transferor requested the return of investment money and the transferee did not have any transfer margin, and no transfer income tax report was filed. The transferor issued to the transferee all necessary documents, such as a certificate of transfer of purchase price and a certificate of personal seal impression, but the transferee unilaterally delayed the change of name and tax return on the change of name in the statement of change of stocks, etc., and the transferor did not know the fact of delay. As such, the delay of the change of transfer of stocks in this case was delayed.

Doctrine act of the assignee regardless of the intention of the transferor, and between the parties

There was no agreement.

Therefore, the provision on constructive gift of nominal trust property under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act cannot be applied.

2) Non-existence of the purpose of tax avoidance

There was no intention or awareness of tax avoidance due to the delayed change of the entry of the instant shares. The transferee already reported and paid the transfer income tax and securities transaction tax in 2009 through 2010, which was four years prior to the commencement of the tax investigation into the instant company, and voluntarily reported and paid the deemed acquisition tax and special rural development tax of oligopolistic shareholders under the Local Tax Act. The instant company did not avoid dividend income tax by paying dividends for the first time in 201, since it did not have avoided dividend income tax by paying dividends in 201.

There was no occurrence or risk.

3) 중복세무조사금지 원칙 위반 주장(망 조〇〇 보유 주식 부분)

부산지방국세청장은 2011년 3월경부터 5월경까지 기간 동안 망 하〇〇과 망 조〇〇 사이의 2006. 2. 16.자 이 사건 회사 주식 120,000주 양도에 관하여 세무조사를 실시한바 있어 세무조사가 완료되었음에도, 서울지방국세청장이 합리적 이유 없이 동일한 거래에 관하여 다시 세무조사를 실시하였으므로, 이 부분 증여세 부과처분은 중복조사금지원칙을 위반한 세무조사에 기초한 것이어서 위법하다.

4) Illegal assertion of the method of stock assessment (preliminary assertion)

Defendant’s Enforcement Decree of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20621, Feb. 22, 2008)

The supplementary evaluation under Article 54(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act").

Pursuant to the Act, the assessment value per share of the instant shares was calculated as KRW 27,280 as of January 1, 2005, KRW 23,751 as of January 1, 2006, and KRW 25,986 as of January 1, 2008, and the disposition of the instant shares was based on these calculated as of January 1, 2008.

그러나 2006. 2. 16. 망 조〇〇가 망 하〇〇에게 이 사건 주식 120,000주를 1주당

Since there are cases of transferring KRW 833 won, if the date of deemed donation is January 1, 2005 and January 1, 2006, the above transaction example should be considered as the market price.

In addition, the proviso of Article 56 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the former Enforcement Rule of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance No. 20 on April 30, 2008), and the former Enforcement

according to the provisions of Article 17-3 (1) (2), the last three years of special profits and losses under corporate accounting standards.

Where the weighted average amount exceeds 50 percent of the weighted average amount of ordinary profit and loss in the last three years:

No net profit or loss value per share shall be calculated on the basis of the weighted average value of net profit or loss per share during the preceding three years;

C. As of January 1, 2005, January 1, 2006, and January 1, 2008, the date of deemed donation, where the weighted average amount of special profit and loss under corporate accounting standards for the last three years exceeds 50 percent of the weighted average amount of ordinary profit and loss for the last three years, the instant company cannot calculate the value of net profit and loss per share, and therefore, the value of the instant shares cannot be assessed by weighted average value of net profit and loss and net asset value. Ultimately, it shall be assessed by net asset value in accordance with Article 54(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) On April 25, 1998, the instant company filed an application for the commencement of composition with the Changwon District Court. Changwon District Court

On October 19, 1998, the court decided to authorize composition, and the composition procedure was concluded on August 29, 2007.

2) The content of the Company’s income statement is as follows.

[Abstract income statement from 1998 to 2008]

[Main contents of income statement from 2002 to 2009]

3) The details of the instant stocks are as listed in the following Schedules.

4) The tax base of capital gains tax on the instant stock transaction between 2009 and 2010

Tax base return and securities transaction tax was reported and paid.

5) On July 17, 2009, the transferee submitted a report statement of acquisition tax, etc. against oligopolistic shareholders by the purport that he/she acquired the instant shares and became an oligopolistic shareholder. Around that time, the transferee paid acquisition tax and special tax for rural development.

[Ground of Recognition] A’s 3, A’s 5-1 through 3, A’s 9-1 through 4, A’s 19-1 through 28, A’s 21-1 through 27, A’s 22-1 through 14, A’s 23-1 through 23, A’s 24-1 through 3, A’s 25-1 through 25-3, and the purport of the entire pleadings

D. Determination

1) Whether a transfer delay was made by a unilateral act of the assignee

A) Whether agreement between the parties is necessary

(1) The provision on deemed donation of title trust property applicable to this case shall apply to the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act.

Article 41-2 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7010 of Dec. 30, 2003) and Article 45-2 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8828 of Dec. 31, 2007; hereinafter referred to as the "former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act") (hereinafter referred to as the "legal provision of this case").

The main sentence of Paragraph (1) of the Act of this case requires registration, etc. in the transfer or exercise of rights.

If the actual owner and the nominal owner are different, the property shall be registered as the nominal owner on the date of registration, etc.

The title holder shall be deemed to have received a donation from the actual owner.

The language and text of the legal provision does not state the requirement for an agreement on the creation of a title trust between the actual owner and the nominal owner. However, the foregoing provision is applicable in cases where the actual owner and the nominal owner make an agreement or communication and make a registration, etc. in the future of the nominal owner. Therefore, regardless of the intent of the nominal owner, in cases where a registration, etc. is made by unilaterally using the nominal owner’s name and using the nominal owner’s name is not applicable (see Supreme Court Decisions 2007Du15780, Feb. 14,

31. See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Nu13531.

D. Meanwhile, in the event that a person who acquired shares and equity shares fails to change the title for a long time, the nominal owner is deemed to have donated the shares and equity shares in question in order to prevent the tax avoidance by using the transfer of title to a third party, and the transfer of title was delayed by Act No. 6780, Dec. 18, 2002.

The above precedents that deemed that the agreement on the establishment of title trust is necessary in order to apply the provision on the constructive gift of title trust are related to the matters prior to the enforcement of the amended Act of 2002, and in the case of the delay of transfer, it is problematic whether the agreement or communication on the delay of transfer between the actual owner and the nominal owner is necessary. Accordingly, in the case of the delay of transfer for a long time, the defendant asserts that since the substance of the delay of transfer for a long time is the same as that of the title trust, the actual owner and the nominal owner are different, and that the actual owner and the nominal owner are not different, and that the change of ownership is not made by the end of the year following the date of acquisition of ownership

However, for the following reasons, this case’s legal provision does not apply in a case of delay of change of title, in principle, because it is applied when an agreement or communication on delay of change of title between the actual owner and the nominal owner is reached, and thus, it is reasonable to view that this case’s legal provision does not apply in a case where the transfer of title is not unilaterally changed regardless of the intent of the nominal owner after the transfer of shares (However, since such subjective requirement reduces the scope of validity in accordance with the language and text of the legal provision, the tax

First, the legal fiction provision of title trust is to realize tax justice in order to prevent tax avoidance by using the title trust system.

Since the exception is recognized, it is desirable to interpret the requirements in a limited manner.

Second, in the case of a transfer delay, it is achieved by passive acts, and in the case of a general title trust, it is achieved by active acts by having registration, etc.

There is a difference between the parties, and accordingly the different date of deemed donation occurs. However, whether there is a need for the unity of the parties with respect to the establishment of title trust or the transfer of title to a third party

In determining whether a change of title is delayed due to its nature, it is difficult to deem that there is a reasonable ground to treat different cases of creation of another title trust. The precedents consistently determine that in the legal provisions of this case the agreement or communication between the actual owner and the nominal owner is necessary. Thus, the case of delay of transfer of title is treated differently and excludes such subjective requirements

There is no reasonable ground for appeal.

Third, in the case of delay of change of title, if there is no agreement between the parties to be placed in the name of the transferor without changing the title, it is extremely unfair to impose gift tax on the transferor even if the transfer is not made pursuant to the unilateral act of the transferee.

may result in such a result.

B) Whether there exists an agreement between the parties

Even if communication or agreement on the delay of transfer is necessary between the actual owner (assignor) and the nominal owner (assignor), the tax authority may only prove that the actual owner is different from the nominal owner, and the tax authority should prove that the delay of transfer was made by the unilateral act of the actual owner (assignor), regardless of the intent of the nominal owner (assignor). (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du15780, Feb. 14, 2008).

However, in this case, the plaintiffs asserted that the transfer delay was caused by the unilateral act of the transferee regardless of the intention of the transferor, but it is not sufficient to recognize the transfer delay by only the statement of No. 20 No. 1 through No. 22, and there is no other evidence to recognize it. Rather, although the company in this case is in difficult circumstances, the transferee purchased the pertinent shares at par value from the transferor, and it seems that there was an objective situation where it is difficult for the transferor to easily refuse the demand of the transferee from the transferor's standpoint, and there is also a circumstance where the transferee bears the burden of the transaction tax, etc. to be borne by the transferor for the convenience of the transferor.

C) Sub-determination

Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is not accepted.

2) Whether there is no purpose of tax avoidance or not

According to Article 105 or 110 of the Income Tax Act, if a transfer is not made in the name of the actual owner, it shall be presumed that the purpose of tax avoidance exists. However, the transferor is presumed to have the object of tax avoidance pursuant to Article 10 of the Income Tax Act.

In case of reporting the details of change of ownership along with the report, presumption shall be excluded.

The transferor, as the last day of the year following the year in which the date of acquisition of ownership falls.

no return of capital gains tax base or securities transaction tax base has been filed by the date of donation;

It can be known that a report was filed after the deadline in 2009. As of the date of donation donation, as of the date of donation donation.

Since there is no ground for exclusion of presumption, it is presumed that there exists a purpose of tax avoidance. Determination of whether there exists a purpose of tax avoidance should be made at the time of the date of donation due to the delay of the establishment of title trust or the change of holders, and thereafter, whether there has been a result of tax avoidance or not. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs alone is insufficient to reverse the presumption of tax avoidance purpose,

Rather, the transferee acquires the shares of this case before he acquires the shares of this case 51,000 (21.85%).

The number of shares of the instant company held by persons was 1,256,000 shares on the list (49.80% of shares ratio). If there was no delay in the change of ownership of the instant shares, the transferee may be deemed an oligopolistic shareholder who is liable to pay the secondary tax pursuant to Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 47 of the Framework Act on Local Taxes [Article 22 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 1021, Mar. 31, 2010; hereinafter referred to as the “former Local Tax Act”)], and Article 7(5) of the Local Tax Act (Article 105(6) of the former Local Tax Act). However, the delay in the change of ownership of the instant shares may be deemed an oligopolistic shareholder who is liable to pay deemed acquisition tax

From the date of acquisition of each share ownership to the date of transfer of ownership, it can be seen that the risk of tax burden was avoided. Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion on this part is rejected.

3) Whether it is unlawful on the basis of a double tax audit

A) Article 81-4(2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 12848, Dec. 23, 2014; hereinafter the same “former Framework Act on National Taxes”) provides that a tax official may not re-examine the same item of tax and the same taxable period, unless there exist any grounds prescribed in each subparagraph. In violation of such provision, a tax investigation conducted in duplicate for the same item of tax and the same taxable period is unlawful, and a tax disposition based on an illegal tax investigation is also illegal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Du12070, Jun. 2, 2006).

On the other hand, the term "tax investigation" means an inquiry in order to determine or correct the tax base and amount of national tax.

to inspect, investigate, or order the submission of the relevant books, documents, or other articles;

Article 81-2 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (including the investigation of tax offence under the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Offenses Act)

Article 3 subparagraphs 1 and 2 of the former Regulations on the Management of Investigations (amended by National Tax Service Directive No. 2105, Jun. 30, 2015; hereinafter referred to as the "former Regulations on the Management of Investigations") and the proviso of Article 12 (1) of the former Regulations on the Management of Investigations (amended by National Tax Service Directive No. 2105, Jun. 30, 2015; hereinafter referred to as the "former Regulations on the Management of Investigations") are referred to as "tax investigation" in which the violation of the Regulations on the Prohibition of Re-Investigation is at issue" refers to questioning of the taxpayer or a person who is deemed to have a transaction with the taxpayer and the taxpayer under the Act on the Punishment of Tax Evaders, the Act on the Punishment of Tax Evaders, the Act on the Punishment of Tax Evaders, the Act on the Punishment of Tax Evaders, and the Act on the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders, which provides that "the act of confirming the facts by local business trip to the taxpayer or such person who has a transaction with the taxpayer

B) The purport of the whole pleadings in each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 14-1 to 3, and Eul evidence No. 4

를 종합하면, 망 하〇〇과 망 조〇〇 사이의 2006. 2. 16.자 주식 120,000주의 거래대

금이 1억 원으로 1주당 약 833원인바, 액면금 5,000원에도 훨씬 미치지 못한 사실, 부산지방국세청장이 2011. 3. 22. 망 하〇〇과 이 사건 회사에 각 '주식 등 변동에 관한해명 안내문'을 발송하였고, 2011. 4. 13. 이 사건 회사에 같은 제목의 공문을 다시 발송한 사실, 위 각 공문은 망 조〇〇와 망 하〇〇 사이의 주식거래에 사실관계가 분명하지 않은 부분이 있어 해명자료를 우편 등으로 제출하라는 것으로, 위 공문에는 '해명자료 제출요구는 세무조사 대상선정을 위한 사전협조를 구하는 절차로서 해명이 적정하다고 판단될 경우에는 제출한 내용대로 종결처리되고, 다만, 제출된 자료가 허위 또는 불명확하거나 해명자료를 제출하지 아니할 경우 세무조사 대상으로 선정될 수 있다'는 취지의 문구가 기재되어 있는 사실, 2011. 3. 22.자 하〇〇에게 발송된 공문에는 해명할 사항으로 '주식 저가양수에 따른 증여의 이익에 대한 증여세 과세대상이므로 이에 대한 해명'이, 제출할 서류로 '주식양수도계약서 사본, 주식양수도대금 지급 관련 증빙서류(금융거래증빙 등)'가 기재되어 있고, 2011. 3. 22.자 이 사건 회사에 발송된 공문에는 해명할 사항으로 '주식 저가양수도 거래에 대한 해명, 명의신탁주식 소유권환원에 대한 해명'이, 제출할 서류로 '주식평가관련 서류 일체, 조〇〇의 주식 취득관련 서류 및 주금납입증명 서류 일체, 양도거래 관련 서류 일체'가 기재되어 있으며, 2011. 4. 13.자 이 사건 회사에 발송된 공문에는 해명할 사항으로 '조〇〇의 주식 취득과 관련하여 실제로 주금이 납입되었는지 여부, 화의개시부터 종료시까지 회사경영 정상화과정에 대한 내용'이 제출할 서류로 '조〇〇의 주식 출자, 유상증자시 주금납입 관련 증빙서류, 화의개시부터 종료시까지의 과정(내용)을 확인할 수 있는 서류'가 각 기재되어 있는 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

위 인정사실에 의하면, 부산지방국세청장은 이 사건 회사에 대하여 망 조〇〇와 망 하〇〇 사이의 주식거래에 대하여 저가양도가 아닌지, 망 조〇〇가 보유한 주식이 망 조〇〇에게 명의신탁되어 있었던 주식인 것이 아닌지 해명을 요구하면서 관련 자료 제

that the request for withdrawal was made as part of the tax investigation, and that the above request for presentation was made as part of the tax investigation.

In addition, to confirm the facts of the stock transaction before conducting the tax investigation.

Inasmuch as cooperation is deemed to have been requested, 'tax investigation to which the anti-investigation (Dual Investigation) prohibition provision applies, i.e.

The Gu investigation affairs conducted in accordance with the investigation plan, accompanied by the right to inquiry or questioning and inspection;

It cannot be viewed as a "tax investigation" under subparagraph 1 of Article 3.

Therefore, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office from November 21, 2013 to February 14, 2014

The consolidated investigation of corporate tax shall be conducted by re-investigation (re-inspection) prescribed in Article 81-4 (2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is not accepted.

4) Whether there is a defect in the method of stock assessment

A) First, as to the assertion that the shares of this case should be assessed in accordance with business example

A. Article 60 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that the value of an asset on which a gift tax is levied shall be based on the market price as of the date of donation (the main sentence of paragraph (1)), and that, in this case, the market price shall be the value deemed to be normal if a transaction is made freely between many and unspecified persons (the main sentence of paragraph (2)), and in cases where it is difficult to calculate the market price, the value assessed according to the supplementary evaluation methods stipulated in Articles 61 through 65 in consideration of the type, scale, transaction circumstances, etc. of the relevant asset (Article 61 (3)). In cases of unlisted stocks, if there are sales cases that adequately reflects the objective exchange value, the price shall be deemed to be the market price, and if it can be deemed that the relevant transaction properly reflects the objective exchange value at the time of the relevant transaction without such examples, and if it is difficult to calculate the market price by any other method, the value assessed by the supplementary evaluation methods may be deemed to be the market price (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 20018Du188.

살피건대, 원고들은 망 조〇〇와 망 하〇〇 사이의 거래가 당시의 객관적 교환가치를 적정하게 반영하고 있다는 취지로 주장하지만, 이 사건 주식의 당해 거래는 대부분 액면가인 1주당 5,000원으로 거래되었고, 위 망 조〇〇와 망 하〇〇 사이의 거래만 이례적으로 1주당 833원으로 거래되었을 뿐 아니라 을 제8호증의 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 망 조〇〇는 이 사건 회사의 등기이사로 재직하다가 1997. 9. 24. 사임한 자로서 당뇨와 말기신부전 및 심장병 등 질환의 치료를 위해 치료비가 급하게 필

요하여 망 하〇〇에게 부탁하여 이 사건 회사 주식 120,000주를 1억 원에 매도한 사실을 인정할 수 있으므로, 그 거래가 일반적이고 정상적인 방법으로 이루어져 당시의 객관적 교환가치를 적정하게 반영하고 있다고 보기 어렵다.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is not accepted.

B) Next, as to the assertion that there was an error in stock appraisal by supplementary assessment methods

A. Article 17-3(1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that the amount of net profit and loss for the preceding three years cannot be calculated, or that it is unreasonable to calculate the amount of net profit and loss per share for the preceding three years because the amount of net profit and loss for the preceding three years is abnormal. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the amount of net profit and loss per share cannot be calculated on the basis of the weighted average amount of net profit and loss for the preceding three years per share, which is the value under Article 56(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, unless there are special circumstances. This legal principle applies to cases where the "average value of estimated profit and loss per share, which is the value under Article 56(1)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, is not calculated or where it is unreasonable to calculate the value of net profit and loss per share based on the value under subparagraph 2 because it fails to meet the requirements under Article 56(1)2.

Furthermore, the valuation of net profit and loss value and net asset value based on the value under Article 56 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act or the value under subparagraph 2 of the same Article shall be based on an weighted average value

If it is not possible, Article 65(2) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides for the method of assessment separately under this Act.

Evaluation methods provided for in paragraph (1) of the same Article and Articles 60 through 64 shall apply to the evaluation of property which has not been made.

(1) The provisions of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and the supplementary evaluation methods under the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act shall be applicable.

In light of the fact that the value cannot be assessed based on an objective and reasonable method, it can be assessed by applying an objective and reasonable method among the supplementary method of assessment prepared by the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, such as the method under Article 54(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, which provides for an assessment by only net asset value (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Du26988, supra; 201Du9140, etc.). Meanwhile, in cases where the value per share of non-listed stocks cannot be assessed as an weighted average amount of net asset value based on the value under Article 56(1)1 or 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, it is reasonable to view that an objective and reasonable method, among the supplementary method of assessment prepared by the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, can be assessed by applying mutatis mutandis the method under Article 54(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. In light of the characteristics of non-listed stocks, it cannot be deemed an objective and reasonable method.

In light of the following circumstances known by the above facts of recognition:

Temporary and contingent special profit (income from debt exemption) as at the date of each deemed donation of stocks of this case;

the stock value of this case on the basis of the remaining ordinary interests of

and reasonable, and there is no error in doing so. Thus, the source does not appear to have any error.

We do not accept this part of the claim.

(1) The net asset value method under Article 54 (4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act shall be as of the evaluation base date

The assessment of stocks of the concerned corporation based on the net asset value of the corporation’s assets less liabilities;

, as provided in each subparagraph of Article 54(4) above, the liquidation procedure for the corporation

A business, such as a corporation where it is difficult to continue the business, or has suspended, discontinued, or deficit;

A method useful to assess the shares of a corporation which is difficult to continue and likely to be dissolved in the near future.

It can be seen as being the case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du2157, Dec. 11, 1998); there is no circumstance that it is difficult to continue the business, such as dissolution, etc. in the near future as of January 1, 2005, which is the base date for appraisal of the shares of this case, and as of January 1, 2006, and January 1, 2008; rather, after the application for composition in 1998, the company's financial status has been improved since 2002, but the sales have increased since 2002, and continuous black conditions have been revealed. Thus, the assessment method under the Net Asset Value Act cannot be deemed as properly reflecting the value of the shares of this case.

(2) In assessing the price per stock of the instant stocks, profits from temporary and contingent debt exemption.

The weighted average amount of net profits and losses in the last three years on the basis of only the remaining profits which have been deducted only;

only special interests that cannot be viewed as profits through normal business activities are excluded, and the remainder

As long as it is difficult to consider that there is a different impact on the commercial profit, current status of assets, financial standing, etc., such evaluation methods do not seem to lack objectivity or rationality.

(3) The evaluation of property under Article 60 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act shall be based on the market price.

Accordingly, the principle is declared, and accordingly, the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act Article 54 is also declared.

subsection (4) of section 4 provides that the value shall be assessed only by net asset value;

to reflect the net profit and loss value and net asset value together with the value of the non-listed stock more than that of the non-listed

As long as the Act stipulates the method of objectively assessing the value of the instant stock, the method of reflecting the net profit and loss value as much as possible in the assessment of the value of the instant stock can be seen as a method of excluding the identity of tax authorities and securing objectivity, and it is difficult to find any objective and reasonable method to assess the instant stocks.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so ordered as per Disposition.

this decision is rendered.