logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2018. 04. 06. 선고 2017누81580 판결
상속세 및 증여세법에서 규정한 보충적평가방법에 따른 쟁점주식의 가액은 적정함[국승]
Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit

Seoul Administrative Court-2017-Gu Partnership-50485 ( October 12, 2012)

Case Number of the previous trial

Cho High-2012-Seoul Government-0787 (Law No. 12, 2012)

Title

The value of outstanding shares pursuant to the supplementary assessment method provided for in the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act shall be appropriate;

Summary

The disposition of this case is lawful because there is no illegality in calculating the price per share of the shares at the time of the transaction of this case by evaluating the shares in accordance with the supplementary evaluation methods under Articles 60 and 63 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and Article 54 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act.

Related statutes

Articles 60 and 63 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, Article 54 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

Cases

2017Nu81580 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

Plaintiff and appellant

O*

Defendant, Appellant

○ Head of tax office

Judgment of the first instance court

Seoul Administrative Court 2017Guhap50485

Conclusion of Pleadings

March 9, 2018

Imposition of Judgment

April 6, 2018

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

The reason for this judgment is that of the first instance court, except for the reasons for the second instance court's judgment with the exception of the following contents:

For the same reason, Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act are cited.

○ 3rd page 18 " shall not exceed above or at least above sale price."

1.3 Does this act be called "...."

○ 10 pages 20 " March 7, 2016" shall be " March 17, 2016".

The "minimum sale price" of 4 pages 11 is higher than the "minimum sale price".

“At the time of the instant transaction” on the 6th page 11, “at the time of the instant transaction or at the time of the auction.”

Ro-friendly.

2. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be this.

As the conclusion is justified, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so ordered per Disposition.

The decision shall be rendered as above.

arrow