Seoul Administrative Court 2012Guhap30752 ( March 30, 2013)

early trial 201J 182, 012. 06.13

The amount of the estimated sale price shall not be deemed the market price of the inventory assets (unsale price).

In full view of the fact that the unsold price in lots, which has been traded according to the scheduled price for parcelling-out, is not identical or similar to three bonds, area, location, use and items, etc., the estimated price for parcelling-out cannot be considered as the market price of inventory assets (unsale

2013Nu19341 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

CivilAA

Head of the Do Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Guhap30752 decided May 30, 2013

January 23, 2014

February 6, 2014

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The imposition of the gift tax belonging to the year 2006 against the Plaintiff on December 1, 2010 by the Defendant and the imposition of the gift tax belonging to the year 2008 shall be 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 of the judgment of this court is as follows: (a) the defendant's new argument in the appellate court is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of the first instance except for the addition of the foregoing, and thus, (b) Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant's assertion

Of the entire commercial buildings in BB of the non-party company (hereinafter referred to as the "commercial buildings in this case"), the units sold within three months before or after January 1, 2008 according to the scheduled sale price, as recognized in the judgment of the court of first instance, shall be 1159, 1161, 1165, and 3 units on October 15, 2007, and 1104 units and 1194 units under the ground that the sale contract was concluded on October 22, 2007, and the unit price of the non-party company's 362 units (hereinafter referred to as the "non-sale price in this case"), and the unit price in this case was the same as the unit price in this case, and the unit price in this case was not the same as the unit price in this case before the conclusion of the sale contract, but the unit price in this case was not the same as the unit price in this case's 10th unit price in this case's 14th unit price.

First of all, it is insufficient to recognize that the entry of No. 16 alone into a sales contract as alleged by the defendant with respect to some of the shopping districts in this case including the unsold price in this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Even if it is recognized that the sales contract was concluded as to some of the commercial buildings in this case as alleged by the defendant, the sales contract was concluded as to the remaining heading rooms except for 1104 underground, among 120 units of 120 units, which the defendant claims that the sales contract was concluded. The sales contract was concluded not later than 3 months before the base date of the first shares, but it is difficult to view that the sales contract was concluded at the same price as to other units of the same area because there was an example for the sales contract to be concluded as to the same price as the expected sale price. Considering that the sales rate of the commercial buildings in this case was low and most of the units of the sales contract, it is difficult to recognize that the sales contract was concluded as the sale price of the commercial buildings in this case before and after the 10th unit price of the commercial buildings in this case, there is no special circumstance that the sales contract was concluded by the non-party company before and after the 10th unit price of the commercial buildings in this case, and that there is no difference between the sale price and the first unit price.

3. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is groundless.