(a) Requirements for recognizing that the transferee of the property has a special relationship with the transferor under Article 34-2 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act and the burden of proof;

B. The burden of proving that the method of calculating the market price of unlisted stocks and the supplementary property appraisal method pursuant to Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act was not possible.

A. In order to recognize that the transferee of the property has a special relationship between the transferor and the transferor under Article 34-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act, the transferee's relative as the transferor's relative is insufficient only with the transferor's workplace relationship, etc., and the facts of the relation are objectively apparent, and the burden of proof is borne by the tax authority

B. In the case of unlisted stocks, if there is an example of sale or purchase which properly reflects the objective exchange value, the price shall be deemed the market price, and if there is no such example or it is difficult to calculate the market price by any other method, the supplementary evaluation methods under Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act can only be applied, and the burden of proving that such supplementary evaluation methods could not be applied to the tax authority.

(a) Article 34-2 of the Inheritance Tax Act, Article 41(2)6 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 11(b) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 87Nu698 delivered on January 19, 1988 (Gong1988,461). Supreme Court Decision 87Nu439 delivered on September 8, 1987 (Gong1987,1586)

Kim Kim

Head of Nam Busan District Tax Office

Busan High Court Decision 87 Gu1 delivered on February 5, 1988

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

The court below assessed that the above 10-year market price of non-party 1's shares were transferred to non-party 5's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 9's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 1'.

In light of the records, the above recognition and judgment of the court below are acceptable. There are no errors in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence, or in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to specially related persons under Article 41 (2) 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act, Article 11 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, or in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the method of appraisal of securities under Article 5 (1) and (5) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. The arguments are groundless.

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.

Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice) Lee Chang-soo Kim Jong-won