Seoul High Court-2013-Nu-19341 (2.06)

As above;

the purpose of this title is the same;

Article 99(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2014Du4566 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

민ㅇㅇ

ㅇㅇ세무서장

Seoul High Court 2013Nu19341

August 20, 2014

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

citing the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, the court below acknowledged the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff acquired 2,500 shares issued by AAA Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “AA development”) (hereinafter referred to as “1 shares”) which are non-listed corporations on October 31, 2006; (b) the transfer of title was not made; (c) the Defendant deemed that the 1 shares were trusted in title to the Plaintiff on January 1, 2008; and (d) the appraisal method of the 1 shares at the BBBBB (hereinafter referred to as “instant 1 shares”) which are inventory assets of AAA development while assessing the value of the 1 shares at the 362 unsold stores in lots (hereinafter referred to as “the unsold stores in lots”) before and after the conclusion of the sale contract at the market price; and (c) the sales price of the commercial buildings at issue could not be determined within 10 months prior to the conclusion date of the sale contract at issue, based on the circumstance that there was no special data different from the sale price at issue price at issue.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

With reference to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, the court below acknowledged the fact that on December 19, 2006, BB transferred 29,250 shares of AAA development to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant transfer”) at KRW 170,940 shares (hereinafter “instant transfer”) after this case’s transfer of management rights to the Plaintiff, and determined that the transfer of this case’s transfer of management rights to the instant transfer of 29,250 shares to the Plaintiff was the largest shareholder of 32,50 shares out of 65,00 shares of AA development before this case’s transfer, but the transfer of this case’s transfer of management rights to the instant transfer of 20,250 shares was the largest shareholder of this case’s transfer of management rights to the instant transfer of 20,00 shares, and that the transfer of this case’s transfer of management rights to the instant transfer of 20,000 shares constitutes an objective transactional transfer price between A and the instant transfer of shares.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there is no violation of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.