Cheongju District Court-2014-Gu Partnership-10382 ( October 21, 2016),

Whether the value per stock of the unlisted stocks appraised by the court appraiser has been excessive in relation to the excessive appropriation of the inventory assets claimed by the plaintiff

(1) As of December 31, 2009, the court appraiser assessed the amount assessed per share in accordance with the supplementary evaluation method stipulated by the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act of the instant shares as of December 31, 2009 as KRW 2,305. If the amount is the smaller amount than the acquisition value between the Plaintiff and the seller, the disposition of this case by the Defendant is unlawful.

Article 35 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (Gift, etc. of Benefits from High Price Transfer)

2016Nu10214 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

00

00. Head of tax office

Cheongju District Court 2014Guhap10382 ( January 21, 2016)

July 19, 2017

August 30, 2017

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of gift tax of KRW 133,519,970 against the Plaintiff on July 11, 2013 is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for dismissal or addition as stated in Paragraph (2) of the same Article, and therefore, the Administrative Litigation Act is the same.

Article 8 (2) of this Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be cited as it is.

2. Parts which are dismissed or added in the judgment of the first instance; and

(a) The part of the 6th parallel 6 to 7th parallel 9 on the 6th parallel 6th parallel 6 to 9 on the 9th parallel 4th parallel.

[4] As to the instant case, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 6, Eul No. 5, 8, 9, 10

In full view of the following circumstances, it is difficult to view that the market price of the instant shares is 40,540 won per share, which is calculated by the supplementary assessment method stipulated in the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, based on the result of evaluating the market price of the instant shares as 40,540 won per share, on the premise that the Defendant’s assessment of the market price of the instant shares is 5,000 won per share and 5,000 won per share, based on the premise that the acquisition price of the instant shares falls under 40,540 won per share.

① As of December 31, 2009, the court appraiser appraised that the appraised amount per share of the instant shares as of December 31, 2009 (as of December 31, 2009, based on the supplementary assessment method stipulated by the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act) is KRW 2,305. The above amount is lower than KRW 5,000 between the Plaintiff and the seller.

(2) The main contents of the result of appraisal drawn by the court appraiser in the first instance are as follows.

From 207 to 2009 to 2009, the inventory assets on the balance sheet prepared at the time.

In particular, the value of the company (items of raw materials) is considerably worse, and the net asset value of the company of this case is remarkably lower than the value based on the balance sheet when revaluated inventory assets by reflecting it normally.

In regard to the above appraisal result, the defendant is dissatisfied with the above appraisal result, and there is no receipts and disbursements stating the entry and withdrawal of raw materials in the company of this case from 2007 to 2009, it is impossible to appraise the past inventory assets of the company of this case at the time of the judgment of this case where 6 to 8 years have passed thereafter, and there are many circumstances premised on the appraiser in conducting the above appraisal.

Since the above appraisal result is assumed, it is argued that the appraisal result should be rejected because it is difficult to believe.

We examine the validity of the court’s appraisal. The best method of evaluating the value of the inventory assets of the instant company from 2007 to 2009 at the time of the lapse of 6 to 8 years is to compute the total amount by adding up the total amount calculated by multiplying the value of the inventory assets at the time by the respective appraised value. However, since the instant company did not have any receipts and disbursements as to raw materials or inventory assets for the said period, it is impossible to grasp the quantity of the inventory assets, the said method is impossible. Under such circumstances, the court’s appraiser in the instant company’s inventory assets from 2007 to 209.

The evaluation method seems to be as follows.

As of January 1, 2007, the court appraiser first assumes that the amount of inventory assets as of the end of the period specified in the balance sheet of the company in 2006 was actually existed as of January 1, 2007. After analyzing sales and purchase tax invoices, etc. of the company in 2007 to 2009, extracted the contents of the raw materials purchased by the company in accordance with the purchase tax invoice, followed them by the construction site performed by the company in this case. In the absence of special circumstances, all of the corresponding raw materials were put into and consumed for the corresponding construction. On the other hand, in the case of raw materials for which the sales site is not followed or where sales site is unclear, it was deemed that the company in this case remains accumulated as inventory assets without recognizing that they were put into the construction.

The method of appraisal can not be specifically confirmed the input quantity of raw materials due to the lack of receipts and disbursements of raw materials. However, there is room for doubt in that the company of this case recognized that the raw materials purchased from 2007 to 2009 were inputs at the response construction site. Meanwhile, the company of this case is not a manufacturer that manufactures finished products by purchasing raw materials in bulk and using them in a large quantity, but a manufacturer that mainly performs construction of machinery and equipment at a several construction site. Such type of construction company is ordinarily purchasing necessary materials for each construction site and then inserting them into the construction site at any time, and it is reasonable to view that the company of this case does not excessively remain or partly reserve the materials, except in special circumstances.

The original appraiser, in the case of raw materials corresponding to the construction site of the seller, invested them in the construction site.

The calculation of the value of the inventory assets on the premise is reasonable and acceptable.

③ Examining the financial statements, etc. prepared by the instant company at the time between 2007 and 2009, the annual sales amount was 3.6 billion won, while the annual sales amount was 2008, the annual sales amount was 3.5 billion won, and the annual sales amount was 4.5 billion won. In 2009, the annual sales amount was 3.5 billion won, and the value of the last inventory value was 3.5 billion won. According to the financial statements of 2010 (No. 5-1), the inventory value was 3.5 billion won, and raw materials were 2.9 billion won among them. In other words, the instant company kept excessive assets at the time of 2007 to 2009, and it appears that most of them were raw materials.

In the case of a company engaged in the installing business, whether there is doubt about the authenticity of the numerical value

corporation that intends to participate in a tender ordered by a public agency. In the case of a corporation that intends to participate in a tender ordered by

In addition, the number of inventory assets in the financial statements in 2007 from 2007 to 2009 can be counted falsely.The above financial statements are highly likely to be counted, and it is difficult to trust as they are.

④ The stock value assessment report (Evidence A No. 5) prepared by the Ccccccc corporation is also deemed zero won per share according to the supplementary assessment method set forth in the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act of the instant shares.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so ordered.

shall be determined as above.