This account (Attorney Kim Sang-sung, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Director of Gangnam District Office

1. The Defendant’s disposition imposing gift tax amounting to KRW 4,732,370 on the Plaintiff on September 22, 1984 and KRW 860,430 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

In light of all the arguments in Gap evidence 1 (Receipt), Eul evidence 5 (Statement of Other Increase), Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1, 2-1, and 3 (Account Statement of Value of Donation) without dispute, the plaintiff purchased 5,000 won per share among the shares issued by the Dong company from non-party 1, 1982, around January 1, 1982, from non-party 1, 5,000 won, 5,000 won per share among the shares issued by the Dong company. The defendant shall be deemed to have difficulty in calculating the market price in assessing the above shares 】 The market price of shares 】 1,5 (Notice of Results of Determination of Change of Stocks), 2-1, 300 won per share 】 1,50 won per share ; 30,000 won per share ; 40,500 won per share, and 1,500 won per share x 30,000 won per share ; 4,507,00 won per share.

As to the plaintiff's assertion that the disposition of this case was lawfully made under each provision of the Income Tax Act, the plaintiff did not err in the evaluation of the market price of the above shares, but the plaintiff and the above non-party borrower did not have any special relationship under Article 34-2 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act, so the transfer price of the property should be considerably low compared to the market price, and the transfer price of the property should be a special relationship under Article 41 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act between the transferor and the transferee. On the other hand, according to Article 5 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Inheritance Tax Act concerning the method of appraisal of the transferred property, the plaintiff and the non-party transferee's testimony cannot be objectively acknowledged as the sale price of the above shares at the time of the transfer, but it cannot be objectively acknowledged as the transfer price of the above shares at the time of the transfer to the same level as the transfer price of the above shares at the time of the transfer.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is legitimate, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Han-gu (Presiding Judge) and Ma-nam