Whether the appraised price falls under the market price

If there is no exchange price through the transaction, the appraisal price of the appraisal institution can be seen as the market price. The appraisal purpose of the appraisal of this case is to accurately reflect the market price at the time of appraisal as the property re-evaluation or market price reference.

Article 60 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act:

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of gift tax of KRW 259,080,90 against the Plaintiff on March 9, 2005, including KRW 259,080,080,90, and KRW 56,73,620, shall be 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. On January 31, 200, 200, ○○ Electronic Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “○○ Electronic Co., Ltd.”) merged ○○ Electric Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “○○ Electric Co., Ltd.”) with a special relationship as a merger ratio of 1:2 (the allotment of ○○ Electric Co., Ltd.’s shares per share prior to the ○○ Electric Co., Ltd.) and the surviving corporation after the merger became ○○ Electronic Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to

B. Before the merger, the ○○ Electronic was appraised as of July 1, 199, and accordingly, the appraisal value was calculated as follows on September 14, 199 by requesting the ○○ Certified Public Accountants and the ○○ Certified Public Accountants to conduct a market price appraisal on the non-owned land and buildings (hereinafter “○○ Factory”).

(unit: Won)

Gu Sector

○ ○ Appraisal

○ ○ Appraisal

Average

Land:

6,208,153,700

5,768,205,800

5,988,179,750

Buildings

30,073,538,900

30,405,611,150

30,239,575,025

Consolidateds

36,27,754,775

○○ Electronic has paid revaluation tax on July 1, 199 on the basis of the above appraisal value after re-evaluation of assets based on the standard appraisal value and after obtaining a decision to re-evaluation of assets from the head of the competent tax office.

When ○○ Electronic combining ○○○○○ Electric Complex on January 30, 200, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, owned by ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, on the basis of January 25, 200, requested an appraisal of the market price as of January 25, 200, and calculated the following appraised values as of January 25, 200.

(unit: Won)

Gu Sector

○ ○ Appraisal

○ ○ Appraisal

Average

Land:

8,379,741,000

8,338,140,000

8,358,940,500

Buildings

2,160,994,000

2,137,758,000

2,149,376,000

Consolidateds

10,508,316,500

C. When determining the merger ratio of the two companies, the ○○ Electric and the ○○ Electric have already assessed the instant ○○ Factory owned by ○○ Electric and, on the premise that there is no reason to deem that the market price of the pertinent real estate was changed during the period from July 1, 1999 thereafter, the average assessed value is applied to the real estate owned by ○○ Electric and the merger ratio of the two companies was calculated as 1:2 by applying the average assessed value on January 25, 200 for the real estate owned by ○○ Electric and the average assessed value on January 25, 200.

D. Before the merger, ○○ electronic shares were 10,800,000 shares for the shares issued before the merger; 600,000 shares for the shares issued before the merger were 12,00,000 shares for the shares issued after the merger became the merged corporation of this case ( = 10,800,000 + 600,000 shares + X2). The Plaintiff owned 7,697,143 shares for the shares issued by the merged corporation of this case before the merger (7,697,143 shares) and owned 7,697,143 shares for the shares issued by the merged corporation of this case (64.15 percent shares). The shares first prior to the merger were 30,007 shares for the shares issued by ○○ Information and Communications Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “○○”) and ○○ cement Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “○○ cement”) owned 9,599,6999,6 shares for the merger.

E. The merged corporation of this case issued 5,000 won per share on February 16, 2001, with capital increase of 200,000 won per share, but the Plaintiff and ○○ Information and Communications did not participate in this and acquired ○ cement’s entire commercial shares.

F. The Defendant imposed gift tax on the Plaintiff regarding the above merger and capital increase with consideration as follows.

(1) The defendant evaluated the appraised value per share of the merged party corporation prior to the merger as an unlisted corporation according to the provisions of Article 63 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5582 of December 28, 1999; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 54 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1660 of December 31, 1999; hereinafter the same shall apply) and assessed the appraised value per share of the merged party corporation according to the provisions of Article 170 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17039 of December 29, 200; hereinafter the same shall apply) on the supplementary valuation method under the provisions of Article 54 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17051, Dec. 30, 200; hereinafter the same shall apply) on the ground that the appraised value of the above merger is not value within three months.

In addition, the appraisal value of the ○○○ Electric Market shall be the value appraised within three months from the date of the merger and the real estate of the ○○ Electric Market is assessed based on it, and ultimately, the stocks of the ○○ Electric Market shall be assessed as KRW 2,986 per share, KRW 10,217 per share, and KRW 10,217 per share, and the stocks of the ○○ Electric Market shall be assessed as KRW 3,198.25 per share under Article 38 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7010, Dec. 30, 2003) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7010, Dec. 30, 200).

Accordingly, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff received a donation of an amount equivalent to 816,859,301 won [3,198.25-2, 986), X7,697,143X1/2] from ○○ Information and Communications (the shareholder of ○○○○○ prior to the ○○○○ Period) and from ○○ cement (the shareholder of ○○○○○), respectively, and imposed gift tax of KRW 259,080,90 and KRW 259,080,90 on the Plaintiff on March 9, 2005 (the instant merger taxation disposition).

(2) With respect to capital increase on February 16, 201 of the merged corporation, the Defendant assessed the value of 24,74,956,065 won, 46,009,030 won of the building, machinery and equipment 36,363,449,976 won, investment securities 6,978,81,00 won, 114,126,317,471 won, as aggregate of the net asset value under Article 66 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3777,53,349,000 won, 200 won per share, 30,000 won per share, 30,000 won per share, 30,000 won per share, 36,05,000 won per share, 36,0615,636,1964, 205,296, etc., of the Inheritance Tax Act.

[Grounds for Recognition] Gap 1-3 Evidence, Eul 1-6 Evidence

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The instant merger taxation disposition

(A) In calculating the merger ratio of ○○ Electronic and ○○○○○ Electric, the Defendant assessed the amount of secured debt in the case of ○○ Electronic real estate, and the amount of real estate prior to ○○○○○○○○ Period based on the appraised value. However, in calculating the merger ratio, the Defendant’s application of the appraised value is against the principle of rationality.

(B) In particular, it is unlawful to calculate the merger ratio by calculating the amount of 6,878,59,000 won as the amount of 6,237,754,775 won in total, even though the base appraisal value of ○○ Electronic’s real estate was calculated on July 1, 199 as the amount of 36,237,754,775 won in total, and the Defendant calculated the merger ratio by calculating

(2) Disposition disposition of capital increase with respect to this case

(A) There is a big difference between the Defendant’s assessed value on the balance sheet of the merged corporation and the Defendant’s assessed value on the basis of the secured debt. Since the value on the balance sheet is very close to the market price of land and building as of the date of capital increase, the Defendant’s assessed assets based on the secured debt amount rather than based on the asset value on the

(B) The issue of this case’s capital increase was strongly demanded by the ○○ Industrial Bank, etc. to ○○ Electric Bank, etc., and at the time, the Plaintiff had already been aware of all the property owned by the Plaintiff and had a serious economic impact for the normalization of ○○ Electronics. Thus, there was no ability to comply with the issue of capital increase. However, the Plaintiff would not be able to comply with the issue of capital increase when only ○ cement would raise funds. However, the merged corporation would be able to comply with the issue of capital increase when it would be able to raise funds. On November 30, 2001, the surviving corporation, which was declared bankrupt by the ○ District Court on July 8, 2003, and eventually, the merged corporation owned by the Plaintiff after being declared bankrupt by the ○○ District Court on July 8, 2003, did not gain any economic benefits from the issue of capital increase. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s taxation of gift tax on donation to the Plaintiff is unlawful in violation of the principle of substantial taxation.

(b) Related statutes;

○ Donation as at the time of merger under Article 38 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7010 of Dec. 30, 2003)

(1) Where a large stockholder (including an investor; hereafter the same shall apply in this Article) prescribed by Presidential Decree, who is a stockholder (including an investor; hereafter the same shall apply in this Article) of a corporation which is extinguished or absorption due to a merger (including a merger by division; hereafter the same shall apply in this Article) of a corporation in a special relationship prescribed by Presidential Decree, or a newly established or surviving corporation (hereinafter referred to as a "merged corporation") receives profits prescribed by Presidential Decree due to such merger, the amount equivalent to such profits shall be deemed to have been donated from the stockholder of the merged party corporation as the other party (referring to the date of registration

(2) The amount equivalent to the profits deemed donated under paragraph (1) shall be the difference between the value appraised as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, on the basis of the stocks or shares owned by the stockholders of the merged party and the immediately preceding merger.

○ Donation of profits from capital increase under Article 39 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7010 of Dec. 30, 2003)

(1) Where a corporation issues new stocks or equity shares (hereafter in this Article, referred to as "new stocks") for the purpose of increasing its capital (including the amount of investment; hereafter in this Article and Article 39-2, the same shall apply), a person who obtains benefits falling under any of the following subparagraphs shall be deemed to have received a donation of the amount equivalent to such benefits:

1. In case where new stocks are issued at a price lower than the market price (referring to the price assessed under Articles 60 and 63; hereafter in this paragraph and Article 40 the same shall apply), the benefits falling under any of the following items:

(a) In case where a shareholder of the relevant corporation (including an investor; hereafter the same shall apply in this Article) has renounced wholly or partially the right to receive new stocks, and where such renounced new stocks (hereafter referred to as “beneficial stocks” in this paragraph) are allocated (excluding the case where a stock-listed corporation or Association-registered corporation under the Securities and Exchange Act allocates them by the method of solicitation of securities under Article 2 (3) of the same Act; hereafter the same shall apply in this paragraph), the benefits acquired by those who received the allocation of relevant forfeited stocks,

(b) In case where the stockholders of the relevant corporation have renounced wholly or partially the right to receive the allotment of new stocks, and where the forfeited stocks are not allocated, the benefits acquired by the person who has renounced such new stocks, by taking over such new stocks;

(c) Profits acquired by a person who is not a stockholder of the relevant corporation by directly obtaining an allocation of new stocks from the relevant corporation (including the case of directly accepting and acquiring the relevant new stocks from an underwriter under the Securities and Exchange Act; hereafter in this paragraph, the same shall apply), or by directly obtaining an allocation of new stocks in excess of the number entitled to receive an allocation under equal conditions in proportion to the

2. In case where new stocks are issued at a price higher than the market price, the benefits falling under any of the following items:

(a) In case where the stockholders of the relevant corporation have renounced wholly or partially the right to receive new stocks, and where the forfeited stocks are allocated, the benefits acquired by the person who received such allocation, by accepting it, from the person who renounced the new stocks in a special relationship;

(b) In case where the stockholders of the relevant corporation have renounced wholly or partially the right to receive the allocation of new stocks, and where the forfeited stocks are not allocated, the benefits acquired by the person who has renounced the new stocks in a special relationship with him;

(c) Profits acquired by a person who is not the stockholders of the relevant corporation from obtaining directly an allocation of new stocks from the relevant corporation, or by taking over directly new stocks in excess of the number entitled to receive an allocation under equal conditions in proportion to the number of the relevant stocks; and

3. In case where the methods and benefits are similar to those stipulated in subparagraph 1 or 2, the benefits acquired directly or indirectly from the person in special relationship, by accepting or not accepting the new stocks or forfeited stocks.

(2) In applying the provisions of paragraph (1) 1, in case where there are not less than 2 minor shareholders who renounced the right to receive new stocks allocated or who obtained the allocation in short of the number entitled to obtain the allocation under equal conditions in proportion to the number of their possessed stocks (including the case where new stocks are not allocated), the benefits shall be calculated by considering that one of the minor shareholders has renounced or obtained the allocation insufficiently

(3) Persons with a special relationship, scope of minority shareholders, method of calculating profits and other necessary matters under paragraphs (1) and (2) shall be determined by the Presidential Decree.

Article 60 (Evaluation of Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act)

(1) The value of property on which an inheritance tax or gift tax is levied under this Act shall be the market price as of the date the inheritance commences or the date of donation (hereinafter referred to as the "date of appraisal"). In such cases, the value appraised by the method of appraisal stipulated in Article 63 (1) 1 (a) and (b) (excluding cases falling under the provisions of Article 63 (2))

(2) The market price under paragraph (1) shall be the price which is considered to be normal in cases of free trade between many and unspecified persons, and shall include the public auction price and appraisal price, and others which are recognized as the market price under the conditions as prescribed by

(3) In application of the provisions of paragraph (1), where it is difficult to compute the market price, the price assessed by the methods prescribed in Articles 61 through 65 shall be based on the kinds, scale and transaction conditions, etc. of the property

(4) In applying paragraph (1), the value of the donated property added to the value of the inherited property pursuant to Article 13 shall be based on the market price as of the date of donation.

○ Evaluation of real estate, etc. under Article 61 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5582 of Dec. 28, 1999, and amended by Act No. 7335 of Jan. 14, 2005)

(1) Real estate shall be appraised by the following methods:

1. Land:

The individual officially assessed land price under the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act (hereinafter referred to as the “individual assessed land price”): Provided, That the value of the land for which no officially assessed individual land price exists, shall be the amount assessed by the superintendent of the competent tax office by a method as determined by the Presidential Decree, taking into consideration the officially assessed individual land price

2. Buildings:

Value determined and publicly announced by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service at least once a year taking into account the prices, structure, use, location, year of new construction, etc. of buildings;

Article 63 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 28, Dec. 28, 1999; Act No. 635, Dec. 29, 200)

(1) The appraisal of securities, etc. shall be conducted by the methods as provided for in the following subparagraphs:

1. Appraisal of stocks and investment shares:

(a)The average amount of stocks and equity shares traded on the Korea Stock Exchange shall be the average daily market price ( regardless of whether there is any transaction record) published every two months before and after the base date of appraisal, provided that in the calculation of the average amount, it is inappropriate to be based on the average amount concerned due to reasons such as capital increase or merger, etc. during two months before and after the base date of appraisal;

(b) The provisions of item (a) shall apply mutatis mutandis to the stocks and equity shares as prescribed by the Presidential Decree from among the stocks and equity shares of the Association-registered corporations as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. In this case, the “final market price”

(c) Stocks and equity shares not listed on the Korea Stock Exchange other than those under item (b) shall be appraised by the method as prescribed by the Presidential Decree in consideration of corporate assets and revenues

2.The appraisal of securities such as state bonds, public bonds, etc. other than those under subparagraph 1 shall be made according to such methods as the Presidential Decree may determine, in consideration of the kinds, scale and transaction conditions of

(2) Any stocks falling under any of the following subparagraphs shall be appraised by the method prescribed by the Presidential Decree, taking into account the business feasibility, transaction status, etc. of the relevant corporation, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) 1:

1. Stocks of a corporation reported to the Financial Supervisory Commission for the purpose of disclosure;

2. Stocks of a corporation which has reported to the Financial Supervisory Commission or the securities business association for over-the-counter trading under the Securities and Exchange Act from among the stocks under paragraph (1) 1 (c

3. Stocks of corporations listed on the Korea Stock Exchange, which are new stocks acquired due to the increase of corporation's capital and not listed on the record date of appraisal;

(3) In the application of the provisions of paragraphs (1) 1 and (2), 20/100 of the value appraised under the provisions of paragraphs (1) 1 and (2) of this Article shall be added to the value of stocks and equity shares (excluding the stocks and equity shares of a corporation that has losses under the provisions of Article 14 (2) of the Corporate Tax Act continuously from a business year within three years before the base date of appraisal) of the largest stockholder, largest investor, and stockholders or investors in a special relationship with the largest stockholder, etc. (hereafter in this paragraph, referred to as the “largest stockholder, etc.”) who are prescribed by the Presidential Decree, but where the largest stockholder, etc. holds in excess of 50/100 of the total number of stocks issued by the relevant corporation, 30/100 shall be added. In this case, the calculation of stocks and equity shares

(4) Deposits, savings, installment savings, etc. shall be appraised at the price calculated by subtracting the amount equivalent to withholding tax under Article 127 (1) of the Income Tax Act from the total amount equivalent to accrued interest and accrued as of the same date as the base date of appraisal.

○ Special Cases of appraisal of property whose mortgage, etc. is created under Article 66 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 60, the larger amount of the value of the property falling under any one of the following subparagraphs shall be the value which is appraised on the basis of the amount of claims secured by the property under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and the value assessed under the provisions of Article 60:

1. Property whose mortgage or pledge is settled;

2. Transferred property;

3. Property registered for lease on a deposit basis (including property leased in return for lease deposit);

○ The evaluation principle, etc. of Article 49 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16660 of Dec. 31, 1999, and amended by Presidential Decree No. 17039 of Dec. 29, 200)

(1) For the purpose of Article 60 (2) of the Act, the term “those recognized as the market price under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, such as expropriation, public auction price and appraisal price” means the price confirmed by the provisions of any of the following subparagraphs only when there is a sale, appraisal, expropriation, auction (referring to an auction under the Civil Procedure Act; hereafter the same shall apply in this paragraph) or public auction during a period of not more than six months before and after the base date of appraisal (in the case of donated property, three months):

1. If the fact of sale and purchase of the relevant property exists, the transaction value: Provided, That such transaction value is deemed objectively unfair, such as transactions with persons with a special relationship as referred to in Article 26 (4), shall be excluded;

2. In case where there exist the appraisal values appraised by the reliable appraisal institutions (hereinafter referred to as the “appraisal institutions”) as determined by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy with respect to the relevant property (excluding the properties provided for in Article 63 (1) 1 of the Act), the average value of such appraisal values: Provided, That in case where the relevant appraisal values are excluded from those falling under any of the following items, and where the relevant appraisal values fall short of 80/100 of the values appraised pursuant to the provisions of Articles 61, 62, 64 and 65 of the Act, it shall be based on the value requested by the head of a tax office (including the head of a regional tax office, etc.; hereinafter referred to as the “head of a tax office, etc.”) to other appraisal institutions

(a) Values inappropriate for the purpose of paying inheritance tax or gift tax;

(b) The appraised value in cases of failing to appraise the relevant property in its original form as of the standard date of appraisal;

3. Where there is any fact of expropriation, auction or public auction on the property concerned, the amount of compensation, auction or public auction;

(2) Where the value deemed the market price referred to in paragraph (1) is two or more, it shall be based on the value corresponding to the date of evaluation.

(3) In case of paragraph (1) 2, where the appraised value of an appraisal institution offered by a taxpayer falls short of the standards prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy, the appraised value of the relevant appraisal institution shall not be deemed the appraised value under paragraph (1) under the conditions as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy.

(4) The Commissioner of the National Tax Service may determine the detailed matters on the criteria, methods and procedures, etc. for each property to ensure fairness in appraisal of inherited or donated property (Newly Inserted by Presidential Decree No. 1598, Dec. 31, 198>

Article 54 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16660 of Dec. 31, 1999 and amended by Presidential Decree No. 17039 of Dec. 29, 200)

(1) Stocks and equity shares not listed on the Korea Stock Exchange (hereafter referred to as "nonlisted stocks" in this Article and Article 56-2) under Article 63 (1) 1 (c) of the Act shall be the weighted average value of the net asset value per share of 3 and 2 percent, respectively, appraised by the following formula (hereafter referred to as "net value of profit and loss" in this Article) and the net asset value per share: Provided, That in cases of a corporation excessively owned (referring to a corporation falling under Article 158 (1) 1 (a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act) in the case of a corporation excessively owned (referring to a corporation falling under Article 158 (1) 1 (a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act), the ratio of net value per share and the net asset value shall be 2 and 3 respectively:

The value per share = The weighted average amount of net profits and losses per share for the latest three years ¡À the interest rate determined and publicly announced by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service in consideration of the circulation rate of three-year corporate bonds guaranteed by the financial institutions (hereinafter referred to as the "net profit and loss

(2) The net asset value per share under paragraph (1) shall be the value appraised by the following formula:

The value per share = The net asset value of the corporation ± Total number of outstanding stocks (hereinafter referred to as “net asset value”).

(3) In the application of the provisions of paragraphs (1) and (2), where a corporation which has issued stocks or investment shares under Article 63 (1) 1 (c) of the Act owns stocks or investment shares not more than 10/100 of the total number, etc. of outstanding stocks of a corporation which has issued other unlisted stocks, the assessment of such other unlisted stocks may be based on the acquisition value provided for in Article 74 (1) 1 (e) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs (1) and (2).

(4) In cases falling under any of the following subparagraphs, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1), the net asset value under paragraph (2) shall be based on the net asset value:

1. Stocks or equity shares of a corporation whose business is deemed difficult to continue within the inheritance tax and gift tax under Articles 67 and 68 of the Act, or the liquidation procedures for the corporation subject to evaluation due to the death, etc. of the business operator; and

2. Stocks or investment shares of a corporation prior to the commencement of business, a corporation less than three years after the commencement of business, and a corporation under temporary closure or closure of business.

3. Stocks or equity shares of a corporation which have losses exceeding the total amount of earnings which belong or comes to belong to each business year under the Corporate Tax Act continuously from that business year within three years before the base date of appraisal in the business year in which the total amount of losses that falls or comes to fall under the business year;

(5) In applying the provisions of paragraph (2), "total number of issued stocks" shall be based on the total number of issued stocks as of the base date of appraisal.

○ The appraisal of property on which the mortgage, etc. is created under Article 63 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16660 of Dec. 31, 1998, and amended by Presidential Decree No. 17828 of Dec. 30, 2002)

(1) The term "value appraised as prescribed by the Presidential Decree" in Article 66 of the Act means the amount falling under one of the following subparagraphs:

1. The value of the property on which a mortgage (excluding joint mortgage and mortgage) is created, shall be the amount of the claim secured by the relevant property;

2. The value of the property on which a joint mortgage is created, shall be the amount of the claim secured by the property concerned, calculated proportionally by its value as of the base date of appraisal of the property jointly mortgaged

3. The value of assets on which the right to collateral security is created, shall be the amount of claims secured by the relevant assets as of the evaluation

4. The value of the pledged property and the property transferred for security shall be the amount of claims secured by the relevant property.

5. The value of property registered for lease on a deposit basis (where lease is made in return for lease deposit, the lease deposit).

6. Deleted;

(2) The sum of the amount of claims secured by the property, where the same property is provided as security for a large number of claims (including security money for lease on a deposit basis and security money) in evaluating the property under subparagraph 1 of Article 66 of the Act pursuant to each subparagraph of paragraph (1).

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) On June 13, 1997, 00 ○○-1 factory site of the instant ○○○-1 factory site of this case, 42,106.20 m2,03 won, and 6,778.90 m2,00 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m26,778-4 factory site of this case were 60,513,428 won, and 4,816,235,461 won. In addition, on December 12, 1999, the acquisition price of the portion of factory production in the building before the asset re-evaluation was 22,689,126,66 won, which was 30,116,658,022 won.

(2) The officially assessed individual land price of the above ○○-1 was 73,300 won on June 30, 1998 (Public Notice on June 30, 1998), 64,50 won on June 30, 1999 (Public Notice on June 30, 199), 65,70 won on June 30, 200 (Public Notice on June 30, 200), 66,60 won on June 30, 200 (Public Notice on June 30, 2001), 66,600 won on June 6, 200 (Public Notice on June 29, 200), 6,60 won on June 30, 200 (Public Notice on June 29, 200), 6, 300 won on June 30, 200 (Public Notice on June 30, 2003).

(3) With respect to the instant ○ factory (factory site, building, machinery, apparatus, and structure), the ○○ appraisal corporation investigated from September 8, 1999 to September 14, 199 as the time point of view for the purpose of asset reassessment and appraised at KRW 83,161,732,600 for the purpose of general transaction (employment) on September 27, 199, and the ○○ appraisal corporation appraised at the time of price from September 15, 1999 to September 22, 1999 and appraised at KRW 67,596,02,450 for the purpose of general transaction (employment).

○○○ ○-2: (a) the officially assessed individual land price of KRW 68,00,00 for industrial land price of KRW 5,123.8 square meters, which is a comparative standard for the land; (b) the rate of 1.0 shall apply from January 1, 1998 to June 30, 199; (c) the individual factors shall be multiplied by 1.55; and (d) an appraisal of KRW 127,00 per square meter by 1.2 in consideration of the case of appraisal of adjacent factory sites in the Corporation, etc. based on the unit price of the ○○ ○○ ○-2 Building (based on 1998) and price data, the semiconductor factory was assessed to KRW 127,00 per square meter per 5 stories, based on the standard unit price of the 752,000,000 won per 752,000 won per 70,000 won per 750,0005 square meters per 105 square meter per 705 square meter.

○○○ Appraisal Corporation applied 1.0 won of the officially assessed land price of 68,000 square meters of the ○○○○-2 Industrial Site 5,123.8 square meters, which is a comparative standard for the land, from January 1, 1998 to June 30, 199, multiplied by 1.45 individual factors, and appraised 118,000 won per square meter by multiplying 1.2 by 1.2 in consideration of the case of appraisal of factory sites in neighboring Corporation due to other factors.Based on the unit price of the building of ○○○ ○-2 Building (based in 1998) and price data, semiconductor factory from the 1st floor to the 1st floor, based on the standard unit price of 752,00 won of the facility revision, 212,700 won per square meter, 965,000 won per 70,000 to the 1st floor and 5th floor, and 00636505 square meters per square.

(4) The nationwide land price fluctuation rate of land for a factory has fallen from the first quarter to the fourth quarter of 1998, and the total land price fluctuation rate was -14.04% from the first quarter of 1999, and was 2.68% from the first quarter of 1999, and the total land price fluctuation rate was 0.87% on 2000, and the total land price fluctuation rate was 0.87% on 0.87%. The land price fluctuation rate at ○○ City was 12.12% in 1998, -12.12% in 1998, 5.79% in 199, 1.76% in 200, 0.62% in 201, and 5.77% in 202.

(5) While ○○ Electric was equipped with a system for the mass production of the press through the end of 1997 and the end of 1998, the foreign exchange crisis and the global semiconductor industry led to financial distress such as early recovery of the investment expenses incurred at the beginning of the establishment of a company, due to the facing the depression of the global semiconductor industry, etc., the application for commencement of company reorganization procedure was made to ○○ District Court on December 3, 2001 and the order for commencement of company reorganization procedure was issued by the above court on January 16, 2002.

[Based on recognition] Gap evidence 3-1, 2, Eul evidence 3-5, Eul evidence 7-1, 2, Eul evidence 8-1, 8-3, Eul evidence 10, Eul evidence 12-2, 3, and 12-3, and the purport of the whole pleadings as a result of fact-finding with 00 appraisal corporations

D. Determination

(1) The instant merger taxation disposition

The term "market price" in Article 60 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act means, in principle, an objective exchange price formed through normal transactions, but it includes the value evaluated in an objective and reasonable manner. Thus, if there is no exchange price through transactions, the appraisal price of a reliable appraisal institution may also be deemed as the market price (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du6029, May 30, 2003). According to the above facts of recognition, ○○ Appraisal Corporation and ○○ Appraisal Corporation shall be a reliable appraisal corporation, stating in detail the specific use area, land category, and use of the relevant ○○ Factory as the standard land for comparison or in any manner identical or similar to the factory site of the instant ○ Factory, and the purpose of appraisal is to accurately reflect the market price at the time of appraisal as it is for asset revaluation or market value at the time of appraisal, and thus, the appraisal and appraisal price at the time of appraisal by ○○ Electronic Corporation shall not be deemed as the market price at the time of payment of the revaluation tax at the competent tax office at the time of appraisal.

In addition, the officially assessed individual land price of the instant factory is 64,500 won in 1999, and 65,700 won in 200. The nationwide price fluctuation rate of factory sites was 0.87% in 1999 and 0.67% in 2.68% in 2000. The land price fluctuation rate of the instant factory site was 5.79% in 1999, 1.76% in 2000, and 0.62% in 201. The price fluctuation rate was 0.7 months in 2007, and 0.62% in 201 in 199, and there was a large change in asset value due to an international remedy financial situation in 1997, and there was a merger after seven months in 30 months in 199, in the absence of any other circumstances. Thus, the said appraisal at the time of the merger can be seen as the market price at the time of the merger.

Therefore, as for the instant ○○ factory, the donated property should be assessed by deeming the appraised value as the market price, not by a supplementary assessment method, for the instant ○○ factory, so the Defendant’s instant merger taxation disposition is unlawful.

(2) Disposition disposition of capital increase with respect to this case

According to the above facts, the appraised value calculated according to the appraised value as of January 31, 200 by the merged corporation based on the merged process as of January 31, 200 can be deemed as the market value. The officially assessed individual land price of the instant ○ factory is 64,500 won in the 1999, 65,700 won in the 2000, 66,600 won in the 2001, and 66,6600 won in the 2002. Considering that the period from the date of merger to the date of capital increase is a short period of one year, the value of land and buildings on the above balance sheet can be deemed as either the market price as of the date of capital increase or the market price close to the market price. Thus, the net asset value of the instant surviving corporation should be calculated according to the above balance sheet.

However, the Defendant assessed the debt balance of 7,753,349,00 won to ○○ Industrial Bank in the amount calculated in proportion to the officially assessed value of each asset, whichever is larger, and calculated the net asset value of 81,226,616,429 on the basis of that amount. The Defendant calculated the net asset value of 114,126,317,471 won in the balance sheet. Since 32,89,701,042 won in the balance sheet is the total amount of 114,734,524,877 won in the net asset value of the merged corporation of this case, the net asset value of 77,634,225,919 won in the net asset value of the merged corporation of this case is the issue value of 6,469.5 won per share (=77,634,625,919,912,000 won in the net asset value per share).

Therefore, since the Plaintiff did not gain any profit due to the capital increase with new shares, the instant taxation disposition against the Plaintiff for capital increase with new shares was unlawful in violation of the substance taxation principle.

3. Conclusion

If so, the defendant's disposition of this case is unlawful, so the plaintiff's claim seeking its revocation is accepted as reasonable.