Daejeon District Court 2013Guhap10018 ( November 20, 2013)

It is difficult to deem that the instant shares were transferred at a price significantly higher than the market price due to transactional practices without justifiable grounds.

(1) In light of the fact that there is no special relation with the non-party corporation, and that there is no circumstance that the non-party corporation would pay profits to the plaintiffs by acquiring the plaintiffs' shares through the transfer contract of this case, it is difficult to deem that the plaintiffs transferred the shares of this case at a price considerably higher than the market price without any justifiable reason in light of the transaction practice.

2013Nu357 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

KimA, ParkB

CC director of the tax office

Daejeon District Court Decision 2013Guhap10018 Decided November 20, 2013

March 27, 2014

April 17, 2014

1. The defendant's appeal is all dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s imposition of the gift tax of KRW 8,127,05,838 on December 1, 201 with respect to Plaintiff KimA and KRW 1,710,175,90 on the gift tax of KRW 8,127,05,838 on the year 209 and KRW 1,710,175,90 on Plaintiff ParkB shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

This court's reasoning is as follows, with the exception of the 7th through 8th of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the 16th of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the

[Attachment]

C) According to the relevant legal principles as to Article 35(2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the tax authority must prove that there is no reasonable ground to believe that the parties to the transaction believe the transaction price at a normal price properly reflected in the value of objective exchange, and that, even if there is no such reasonable ground, the transferee’s acquisition of the property at the transaction price was improper from the perspective of a reasonable economic person’s perspective.

6. 【○○○○○ Industries Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○○○○ Industries Co., Ltd.”)’s acquisition of new shares by ○○○○○○○ Industries Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○○○○○”)’s acquisition of new shares by ○○○○○○ Industries Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○○○○ Industries Co., Ltd.”), and the Plaintiff’s acquisition of new shares by ○○○○○ Industries Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○○”)’s acquisition of new shares by ○○○○○ Industries Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter “Co., Ltd.”)’s acquisition of new shares by ○○○○○○○ Industries Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Co., Ltd.”)’s acquisition of new shares by ○○○○○○ Industries Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter “Co., Ltd.) and the Plaintiff’s acquisition of new shares by ○○○○ Industries Co., Ltd.).

2. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiffs' claims shall be accepted with due reasons, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be this.

As the conclusion is justified, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in its entirety due to the lack of grounds.

It is so decided as per sentence.