Criteria for calculating the market price of unlisted stocks

Where a large volume transaction is conducted daily, such as listed stocks, it shall be reasonable to regard the market price as the market price, in addition to the fact that the market price is deemed the market price, or in the case of unlisted stocks with less market value, where there are examples of sale recognized to have properly reflected the objective exchange value thereof.

Article 9(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act, Articles 5(1) and 5(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 80Nu522 Delivered on February 9, 1982

[Judgment of the court below]

Gangwon-gu Director of the District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 84Gu909 delivered on September 23, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to Article 34-2 (1) of the Inheritance Tax Act, in case where a property is transferred to a person with a special relationship prescribed by the Presidential Decree as consideration for remarkably low value, the transferor of the property shall be deemed to have donated the transferee an amount equivalent to the difference between the price and the market price at the time of transfer of the property. Article 9 (1) of the same Act provides that the value of the inherited property shall be based on the current status at the time of the commencement of the inheritance, and Article 5 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the value of the inherited property at the time of the commencement of the inheritance shall be based on the method prescribed in paragraphs (2) through (5) of the same Act, if it is difficult to calculate the market price at the time of the commencement of the inheritance, it shall

However, in a case where a large volume transaction, such as listed stocks, is conducted every day, it shall be reasonable to view the market price as the market price, and in a case where there is an example of sale acknowledged to have properly reflected the objective exchange value in the case of unlisted stocks with less market value, it shall be reasonable to regard it as the market price.

In this case, the court below held that the non-party 2,438 shares owned by the non-party 3 on December 20, 1982, the following day after the non-party 1 transferred 20,00 shares of the non-party 1 to the plaintiff by macrofication, and that the non-party 4 transferred 17,625 shares to the non-party 5 at the 76,625 shares owned by the non-party 76,625 shares, and the non-party 6 transferred 1,00 shares at each face value per share to the non-party 7,8, and the non-party 9 at the time of the commencement of the inheritance. The non-party company did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as seen above, since the non-party 1 was the non-party 10 representative director who was the non-party 10, who was the non-party 10, who was the non-party 10, who was the non-party 10, whose shares were transferred at the market price of this case.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)