Employees include not only commercial employees under the Commercial Act, but also executives and other persons in the relationship of employment contract.

It is reasonable to view that employee under the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act includes not only commercial employees under the Commercial Act, but also executives and other persons in an employment relationship, and his/her employees shall be deemed to constitute a prescribed specially related person on the basis of the plaintiff who is a transferee of shares.

2012Revocation of revocation of disposition imposing gift tax, 4380

Kim T-T

Head of Dong Daegu Tax Office

July 24, 2013

September 13, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition on June 30, 2012 against the Plaintiff on the imposition of OOO (including additional tax) of the gift tax on June 30, 2008 is revoked.

1. Circumstances of dispositions;

A. The CCC Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “CCC”) is an unlisted company established for industrial machinery, agricultural machinery, and sales business, real estate rental business, etc., and the Plaintiff is the representative director of the CCC, and the CCC was in office as a director of the CCC from April 15, 1989 to October 9, 2008, and the PP was in office as a director of the CCC from October 15, 198 to 2008, and the PJ was in office as the wife and the Austria.

B. On June 30, 2008, the Plaintiff acquired (hereinafter referred to as "the instant transaction price") the CCC shares (hereinafter referred to as "the instant shares") at 44,500 won (hereinafter referred to as "the instant transaction price"), as follows, from DNA, EB, and EJ (hereinafter referred to as "ED, etc."):

Classification

A transferee

transferor

Number of Stocks

Price per share

Amount of takeover;

Transaction of this case ①

DaD

OO

(1) Stocks of this case

OOOE

OOOE

(2) The transaction of this case

JB

OOO

(2) Stocks

OOOE

OOOE

3. Transaction of this case

JJ

OOO

(3) Stocks

OOOE

OOOE

C. The Defendant deemed that the instant transaction constitutes a transfer at a low price under Article 35 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (hereinafter “the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”), and determined and notified that the value per share of the instant shares at the time of the instant transaction as an OOO under the supplementary assessment method stipulated in Article 63(1)1 (c) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and Article 54 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, after deducting KRW 300 million under Article 35(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and Article 26 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act from the difference between the said appraised value and the instant transaction amount, the Plaintiff is deemed to have been donated to OOO (including each additional tax) by OOO (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

Classification

Market value (XOOOO won of the number of stocks)

Amount of takeover;

Difference

(Value of the market price - Price of religion)

Value of donated property (Difference - KRW 300 million)

Amount of gift tax (each)

(including penalty tax)

This case

(1) Transactions.

OOOE

OOOE

OOOE

OOOE

OOOE

This case

(2) Transactions.

OOOE

OOOE

OOOE

OOOE

OOOE

This case

(3) Transactions.

OOOE

OOOE

OOOE

OOOE

OOOE

D. The Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for examination with the National Tax Service, 2012, and 7.9. However, the Plaintiff was dismissed on August 17, 2012.

[Ground of Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, and Eul evidence 1 (including each natural disaster), and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

“1) Article 35(3) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and Articles 26(4) and 19(2)2(a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provide that “a person in a special relationship refers to a transferor, an employee, or a person, other than an employee, who maintains his livelihood with the property of the pertinent state, etc., and so long as an employee does not specifically delegate the scope of the employee under the above provision, the employee shall be deemed to mean only a trade employee under the Commercial Act. Therefore, the Plaintiff shall be deemed to mean a trade employee under the Commercial Act. Therefore, the Plaintiff shall be deemed to have no special relationship with DaD, as well as DaD.” (2) In light of the following circumstances, 44,500 won per share, the price at which the Plaintiff acquired the stocks of this case from DaD, etc., constitutes an appropriate market price reflecting the objective exchange value at the time of the instant transaction. Nevertheless, the Defendant’s application of

A) OrD acquired and held the stocks of the CCC in 1985 (242 won per share) and discussed the amendment of the provision on payment in kind on August 2007. Around December 31, 2007, the amendment of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and the Inheritance Tax Act were amended, making it impossible to pay in kind as non-listed stocks, thereby making it difficult to report and pay inheritance tax difficult, but no purchaser was found.

B) Around April 2007, the U.S. Western incident occurred, and the sales amount of CCC, an unlisted corporation that runs real estate leasing business, has sharply decreased (income amount, OOOO in 2006, OOOOO in 2007, OOOOOO in 2008, and OOOOOO in 2009).

C) At the time of the instant transaction, the Plaintiff had an OCO share (OO%) with CCC shares at the time of the instant transaction, and had the right to manage the said company, so there was little inducement for the instant transaction.

D) Even if a large shareholder, such as DaD, who did not have managerial right of the CCC, has a high net income arising from untreated surplus or share law evaluation profit of the CCC, it cannot obtain any profit unless the CCC actually distributes it through a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders.

E) It cannot be readily concluded that the transaction value of the instant shares is lower than the transaction value based on supplementary evaluation methods, and that the transaction value of the instant shares is not 'OOO' at the market price.

F) If the value of the shares of this case is assessed through the dividend discount model [p] = Cash dividend (d)/Distribution Profit Rate (r, COSN 2008 O%), a approximately KRW OOOO (OOO) - OOOOO (OOO) is much lower than the transaction value of this case.

G) Since DaD and HaJ purchased land for the construction of a new building in Seoul on June 23, 2008, it was necessary to pay the purchase price of the land around that time.

H) On June 2, 2008, the Plaintiff acquired the CCC stocks from the Korea Asset Management Corporation for one share of the CCC stocks held by the Ministry of Finance and Economy, and this was a public auction conducted through competitive bidding, and at that time, several and unspecified persons could freely participate by means of a bid at that time. In addition, the Plaintiff’s KimW acquired CCC stocks from the EUU’s auditor on May 11, 2009 at KRW 44,50 per share of the CCC stocks from the EU. In light of the above trading cases, the instant transaction value reflects the objective exchange value appropriately.

3) If the disposition of gift tax under Article 35(2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is lawful, not only the fact that the transferee acquired the property from a person other than the person with a special relationship at a significantly lower price than the market price, but also that there is no justifiable reason in light of transaction practices, the tax authority must prove the fact that there is no justifiable reason, and the defendant is not obliged to prove the fact, and there is no economic circumstance or motive to distribute profits to the Plaintiff by DaD, etc., and therefore, there is no justifiable reason in light

(b) relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c)a recognition;

1) Distribution of the CCC shares

On June 30, 2008, June 30, 2008 and December 31, 2008, after the instant transaction, distribution of the shares of the CCC as of December 31, 208 is as follows.

No.

Name or corporate name;

June 30, 2008

December 31, 2008

(Number of shares)

Equity ratio (%)

(Number of shares)

Equity ratio (%)

1

OO

O%

OO

O%

2

Kim W-W (A)

OO

O%

OO

O%

3

KimV (Coinant)

OO

O%

OO

O%

4

주QQ

OO

O%

OO

O%

5

DaD

OO

O%

OO

O%

6

JB

OO

O%

OO

O%

7

JJ

OO

O%

OO

O%

8

eU

OO

O%

OO

O%

9

I(III)

OO

O%

OO

O%

10

Republic of Korea (Ministry of Finance and Economy)

OO

O%

OO

O%

Total

OO

O%

OO

O%

2) Total assets, etc. of the CCC

Items

207

208

209

2010

Total Assets

OOOE

OOOE

OOOE

OOOE

Application of Share Act

Investment shares1)

OOOE

OOOE

OOOE

OOOE

Sales

OOOE

OOOE

OOOE

OOOE

Operating Income

OOOE

OOOE

OOOE

OOOE

Income from non-business operations

OOOE

OOOE

OOOE

OOOE

net income

OOOE

OOOE

OOOE

OOOE

2) Equity Interest 2)

OOOE

OOOE

OOOE

Non-Disposition

Surplus

OOOE

OOOE

OOOE

OOOE

A) The total asset light of the CCC is as follows: (a) investment stocks subject to equity in non-identical asset items; (b) sales amount; and (c) non- disposed profits surplus in 201. In particular, un disposed profits surplus in 201 reaches OO won.

B) As of December 31, 2007, the major (subsidiary) companies of the CCC (hereinafter referred to as “CCC”) as of December 31, 2007, the business objectives, equity ratio, etc. of the Company are as follows.

Name of Company

Business Purposes

(Joint)

Representative

01. Gags

Directors, Auditors

Number of shares (number of shares)

CCC ownership ratio (%)

Face value per share

I III

Stock Company

Manufacture, processing, and sale of parts of motor vehicles, boats, and industrial machinery;

Directors OD

Of June 199, and retirement of 202.6

OO

O

OOOE

Stock Company

RRR

Manufacture, sale, import, and export of clurbry and masts

Audit DoU

OO

O

OOOE

Stock Company

MMMM

Packaging and logistics movement-related bookM business

Audit DoU

OO

O

OOOE

Limited Company

GGGG

The manufacture, sale, import, and export of clurbs and masts

Audit DoU

OO

O

OOOE

LLLLL corporation

Manufacture, sale, and export of automatic components

Audit DoU

OO

O

OOOE

C) As of June 30, 2008, the total number of shares issued by CCC as of June 30, 2008, the transaction date of the instant case, is the OOO, capital is the OOO, the net asset value per share is the OOO, and the net asset value per share (=net asset value / the total number of shares issued) is the OO, and the value per share calculated by the weighted average amount of net profit and loss for the recent three years is the OOO, and the assessment value per share is the OOO.

(iii) the assets, etc. of a subsidiary company;

Items

207

2011

Total Assets

OOOE

OOOE

Sales

OOOE

OOOE

Operating Income

OOOE

OOOE

Income from non-business operations

OOOE

OOOE

net income

OOOE

OOOE

Unclaimed retained earnings;

OOOE

OOOE

A) The LLL is a manufacturer and seller of vehicle parts, and its total assets, sales, etc. are:

(B) III and Peace Emb. 31 Dec. 31, 2007, including the total assets, sales, operating profits, and non-business profits, are as follows:

Items

I III

RRR

Total Assets

OOOE

OOOE

Sales

OOOE

OOOE

Operating Income

OOOE

OOOE

Income from non-business operations

OOOE

OOOE

net income

OOOE

OOOE

4) Transaction cases, etc.

A) The transaction cases for the CCC stocks (hereinafter “instant transaction cases”) before and after the instant transaction date are as follows.

No.

Date of transaction

Number of shares (number of shares)

Transaction Price (won/State)

Amount of transaction ( won)

Seller

Buyer

1

June 2, 2008

OO

OOOE

OOOE

Ministry of Finance and Economy;

2

May 11, 2009

OO

OOOE

OOOE

EU (CCC Audit)

W KimW

(A) The plaintiff's children

B) The Plaintiff’s shares No. 1. The Plaintiff’s KimW donated the CCC stocks from 00 on November 28, 2005, and on February 24, 2006, when filing a gift tax reduction report to the Defendant on February 24, 2006, paid OCO stocks among the shares donated to the Defendant as OOO stocks.

C) The Plaintiff was awarded a bid for the first price in the public auction procedure for shares 1. The Plaintiff asserted that it would be aimed at excluding the business separation (request for replacement of audit and the increase of dividend, supervision of the general meeting of shareholders, etc.) of the state that was a shareholder for the reasons for the purchase.

D) Meanwhile, on May 1, 2008, immediately before the instant transaction, the Plaintiff sold the LLL LL stocks to CCC in the aggregate of OO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-U

5) Acquisition, etc. of the instant stocks of DaD, etc.

A) On June 19, 1986, ASEAN acquired each of the CCC stocks on December 21, 1990, OO, 7, OOOO, and 27, 190, and OOO on December 24, 198, respectively, through capital increase with or without compensation, and on June 19, 198, OB and OJ acquired each of OO and OOOO and OOOO and 24, 198 in the same manner at the same time.

B) The fact-finding certificate (Evidence No. 6) written by DaD states that l principal’s supervision sold the instant shares to the Plaintiff, and endeavored to sell the instant shares before several years, but it is judged impossible to seek external purchaser, and that l principal’s request for purchase was made to the Plaintiff as a major shareholder.

C) On March 26, 2012, the Plaintiff did not request an appraisal agency to conduct an appraisal because it was deemed important to negotiate the price at the time of the door-to-door investigation (Evidence B No. 8), and received a request to purchase the instant shares from DaD from around two years before the date of the instant transaction, and DoD knew that DoD acquired the instant shares below KRW 100,000,000, it stated that the instant transaction price was also high.

(D) On June 23, 2008, ASEAN, JJ, Lee F, purchased 4,280,000 m24,480.4 m2 (hereinafter “instant land”) from Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Seoul on June 23, 2008, and completed the ownership transfer registration on July 10, 2008 (D3/9 shares, J J 4/9 shares, and F2/9 shares), and newly constructed the above 6th above ground and second underground buildings (hereinafter “the instant building”), and completed the ownership preservation registration on August 21, 2009 (the share ratio as above), and the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that DaD, etc. used the purchase price for the instant land as the sale price for the instant land, but did not submit objective data on the purchase price for DaD, etc. as the sale price for the said land.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 17 through 23, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, 5 through 8, 10, 11, 13, 15, 17 (including various numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) Whether there is a special relationship with the Plaintiff

Article 35(1)1 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that the transferee shall be deemed as a donee and shall be deemed as having received the property at a lower price than the market price; Article 35(2)2 and (3) provides that the scope of a lower price and high price shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree; accordingly, Article 26(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23591, Feb. 2, 2012) provides that a person who has a special relationship under Article 35(2)1 of the same Act shall be deemed as having a relationship under any of the following subparagraphs 1 through 1, 19(2)1, 2, and 4 through 8 shall be deemed as having been donated to the donee. In such cases, one shareholder, etc. shall be deemed as having a special relationship under Article 35(1)1 and 2, and Article 26(2)1 and 26(3)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act shall be deemed as an employee under Article 19(20(2)1)10).

B) Article 19 (2) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "an employee under the Commercial Act refers only to a commercial employee under the Commercial Act; (i) an employee is a person who provides labor under an ordinary labor contract and receives compensation; and (ii) Article 19 (2) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "an employee may appoint or dismiss other employee than a manager, and (iii) Article 11 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "an employee is not a manager, and the employee is not a commercial employee under the employment contract, and Article 35 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "an employee is not a person under employment contract, and that the employee is not a person under employment contract." Article 2 (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "the employee is not a person under employment contract, and that the employee is not a person under employment contract."

2) Whether the transaction price of the instant case can be recognized as the market price

A) Under the provisions of Article 60 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the calculation of the value of donated property by the supplementary method of assessment as stipulated in Articles 61 through 65 of the same Act is limited to cases where it is difficult to calculate the market price as of the date of donation of donated property, and where it is difficult to calculate the market price. Under Article 60(2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the tax authority bears the burden of proof for the Defendant, who is the Defendant. Under Article 60(2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the market price refers to the value that is generally established when free transactions are conducted between many and unspecified persons, and the objective exchange price formed through a normal transaction. Thus, even if there are actual transactions, if the transaction price cannot be deemed to be formed by a normal transaction that adequately reflects the objective exchange value of donated property, it shall be deemed difficult to calculate the market price, and if the subject of donation is non-listed stocks, the price may be calculated by the supplementary method of assessment (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Du2271, May 13, 219, 219).

B) In light of the following circumstances revealed by the health team, the evidence mentioned above, and the above facts found, 44,500 won per share, which is the transaction value of the instant shares asserted by the Plaintiff as the market price, cannot be seen as properly reflecting the objective exchange value of the instant shares at the time of the instant transaction, and otherwise, there is no example of sales that properly reflects the objective exchange value of the instant shares at the time before and after the instant transaction date, and it is difficult to calculate the market value of the instant share by any other means. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the transaction value of the instant shares should be considered as the market value is without merit.

(1) From April 15, 1989 to the time of the transaction in this case, DaD had been employed for a long time as a director of CCC, and DaDD et al., (i) held O% of CCC’s total stocks at the time of the transaction in this case (i.e., d O% + b O% + eJ JOO%) and (ii) excluded III companies from the shareholders of CCC, the Plaintiff was one of the two major shareholders, and (iii) B and EJ were the wife and children of DaD. Accordingly, DaD et al. was well aware of the content, revenue structure, business value, and future prospects of CCC.

(2) The CCC’s business purposes consisting of industrial machinery, machinery for agriculture and machinery, and products manufactured, processed, and sold, real estate substitute leaves, etc., and as of December 31, 2007, the CCC’s business purposes consisting of O% of the CCC’s total stocks, O% of the RCR’s total stocks, O% of the MMM, OO% of the total stocks, ALGGGG stocks, O% of the total stocks, and O% of the LLLLLL total stocks, and the investment stocks subject to the equity law occupy most of the total assets, and the non-business profits (distribution revenues) account for most of the total assets, and there is little influence that the decrease in business profits, such as real estate rental business profits claimed by the Plaintiff, affects the value of CCC’s stocks.

(3) In other words, from 2007 to 2010, the total assets and equity shares of the CCC have increased annually, and despite the business losses, there have been a large amount of net income of at least 10 billion won each year, and each year, a large amount of net income of at least 10 billion won has increased rapidly, and the surplus of unused profits has increased rapidly, and OO in 201.

(4) Four major subsidiaries of the CCC are companies that manufacture and sell automobile parts, such as clurry, against modern automobiles, aircraft cars, etc., and one company are very companies that have been continuously engaged in growth. Among them, the Korea Pakistan is the total assets OOO in 2007, sales OOOO, operating operating OOOOO, non-operating profits, OOOOOOOO, non-business profits, non-business profits, and USOOOOOO, and third is the total assets OOOOOO in 207, sales, OOOOOO, operating profits, and net profits of the POOOO and POOOO, and RR is the total assets OOOO, sales, sales, non-operating, sales, and net profits of the POOO and POOOOO and POOO and POOO and POO and POO and POC.

(5) As of June 30, 2008, the transaction date of the instant case, the net asset value per share of CCC stocks is the OOO personnel, and the assessment value per share calculated by supplementary assessment methods are the OO personnel, and the OOOO per share between the Plaintiff and OD is merely the O% of the complementary assessment value, and there is a significant difference.

(6) On November 28, 2005, the Plaintiff’s KimW donated the CCC Co., Ltd. with the CCC A on the donation on November 28, 2005, and the Plaintiff purchased the above shares in the public sale process on June 2, 2008, and the said purchase price constitutes a case where a person with a special relationship with the donee acquired the property paid in kind under Article 49(1)3(a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act by public sale, and thus, it cannot be deemed as the market price. However, the transaction price of this case is limited to 26.4% of the CCC’s total assets and non-disposition’s profits continuously increase, and the net income amount is equal to 3 years prior to the payment in kind, and the amount acquired by the Plaintiff during the public sale procedure is considerably below the price of the shares acquired by the Plaintiff.

(7) On May 11, 2009, the U sold OCC stocks to KimW, the Plaintiff’s ASEAN, in the form of an OOO on the part of May 11, 2009, and the UU was the auditor of the CCC and around one year after the instant transaction ice. This UU and KimW appears to have determined the sales price according to the instant transaction transaction amount. Therefore, the said transaction price cannot be deemed as the market price pursuant to Article 49(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and it cannot be deemed as the price recognized as being established in the case of free transaction between many and unspecified persons. On the other hand, it is not confirmed that there is no other proper transaction example that adequately reflects the objective exchange value of the instant stocks.

(8) EB, and OJ have delegated DaD with both authority to dispose of the instant shares, agreed with the Plaintiff, the representative director of the CCC, and the Plaintiff and DaD did not make efforts to assess the appropriate value of the CCC by providing a reliable accounting firm with objective accounting data. In addition, there was no objective evidence as to DaD et al.’s attempt to sell the instant shares to a third party.

(9) The transaction of a single-time unlisted stock that is a substantial 2 major shareholder of the CCC transferred to the Plaintiff, the largest shareholder in the process of the relevant liquidation cannot be deemed as a transaction freely conducted between many and unspecified persons, and it is difficult to view that the instant transaction was made in a general and normal manner to properly reflect the objective exchange values at the time of the instant transaction.

3) Whether the business practices have taken over significantly at a low price without justifiable grounds

A) The legislative purport of Article 35(2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is to: (a) in a case where profits equivalent to the difference between the price and the market price are actually transferred without compensation through abnormal means that manipulates the level of transaction for the benefit of the other party to the transaction; (b) thereby coping with and promoting fair taxation by imposing gift tax on the profits earned by the other party to the transaction by means of imposing gift tax on the profits earned by the other party to the transaction; (c) however, since the transaction between the unrelated parties does not coincide with each other; (d) it is difficult to deem that the difference was donated to the other party to the transaction solely on the ground that there is a difference between the price and the market price; and (e) Article 35(2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act added the taxation requirement that “for the transaction between the unrelated parties, unlike the transaction between the unrelated parties, there is no justifiable reason for the transaction practice” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Du5081, Aug. 23, 2013).

Meanwhile, it is reasonable to view that the value assessed by the method under Articles 61 through 65 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act pursuant to Article 60(3) falls under the market price that is the basis for calculating the value of the property on which the gift tax is levied, as well as the market price that is the basis for determining whether the property is subject to the gift tax under Article 35(2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Du3200, Jun. 14, 201

B) First, Article 26(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that with respect to whether the Plaintiff acquired the shares at a price significantly lower than the market price, the term “value significantly lower than the market price” refers to the price where the value calculated by subtracting the price from the market price of the transferred property differs by 30/100 or more of the market price. In addition, the market price of the shares of this case calculated based on the supplementary assessment method stipulated in the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, but the market price of the shares of this case, calculated based on the supplementary assessment method stipulated in the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, is as seen earlier.

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the amount calculated by subtracting OOO per share, the transaction value of the instant stocks, from the market price based on the supplementary assessment methods of the instant stocks, exceeds OOO, and the amount exceeds 30/100 of the market price, and that the Plaintiff acquired the instant stocks from OD, etc. at a price significantly lower than the market price.

C) Next, in light of the following circumstances, with respect to whether the Plaintiff acquired the instant stocks at a remarkably low price without any justifiable reason under the transaction practices, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff and DaD, etc., who have substantially low price traded the instant stocks, have no reasonable grounds to believe the transaction price at a normal price that reflects the objective exchange value, and in particular, there are objective grounds to deem that the transfer of the said stocks at a reasonable price from a reasonable economic point of view is an abnormal acquisition of the said stocks without justifiable reasons under Article 35(2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the premise that there exists a justifiable reason under the transaction practices of the instant stocks transaction, is without merit.

(1) The Plaintiff and DuD are in a special relationship under Article 35(2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and thus, the taxation requirement that “in imposing gift tax on the instant transaction under Article 35(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, there is no justifiable reason for the transaction’s practice.”

(2) The Plaintiff, EB, and EBJ do not have a special relationship with the Plaintiff under Article 35(2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. However, the EB and EJ do not have any actual involvement in the instant shares transaction, and the ED, as her husband and father, was entirely entrusted with the instant transaction, and the legislative intent of Article 35(2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is added to the taxation requirement under the premise that the said transaction does not coincide with the interests of the Plaintiff in the said non-related transaction, and the Plaintiff and EB, and EJ.

(3) The Plaintiff asserts that prior to the instant transaction, the management rights of the CCC had already been secured, and there was no incentive to purchase the instant shares from OrD, etc. However, ① the Plaintiff’s shares at the time of the instant transaction were OW, and OV shares were added to those of AW, and the Plaintiff’s sole shares increased to OV (O%) by purchasing the instant shares, ② on June 2, 2008, immediately before the instant transaction date, the Plaintiff purchased CCC shares at the 20-OCC shares at the 30-OCC shares (OCC shares were purchased at the time, and that there was no incentive to purchase them at the time, and that there was no incentive to purchase them at the 20-OCC shares at the time, and that it would be more likely that the Plaintiff would have purchased the instant shares at the 20-OCC shares at the time, and that the 20-OCC shares would have been purchased at the time, so it would not be more likely that the 3OCC shares would have been purchased.

(4) The Plaintiff asserted that DaD et al. intended to sell the instant shares to a third party, but did not find any purchaser, but there is no objective evidence proving that DaD et al. tried to sell the instant shares to a third party.

(5) The Plaintiff asserts that, around April 2007, the 2007 ScCC’s operating profit was rapidly reduced, etc. However, CCC’s stocks in its own company account for most of its total assets, and even in 2007 where ScCC’s operating profit (dividend income) occurred, the net operating profit was transferred to OOO won in 2008, and the operating profit was more than 24 times the operating loss in 209, and the operating profit was more than 40 times the operating loss was generated in 2010. Accordingly, CCC’s main business cannot be deemed as the main business of CCC, and the sales business of real estate was not affected by the PCC’s own assets and parts in 2007.

(6) As of December 31, 2007, the CCC has a O% of the total issued stocks of LLLLL and controls the above company. On May 1, 2008, the Plaintiff sold LLLL stocks to CCC with its representative director in total of 12.8 billion OO per share, and CCC has several construction companies including LLLLLLL, and unless there are special circumstances, it should be deemed that the price per share of CCC around May 2008 is higher than the price per share of LLLL LLL.

(7) However, in the instant transaction between the Plaintiff and OD, which was achieved more than two months after the date of the Plaintiff’s transaction of the said LLLLL LLL stocks, the LCC’s price per share was set as an OOO per share of the said LLLLL LL LL LL L LL L, and there is no reasonable ground to believe that this transaction price, such as the Plaintiff and OD, was at a price that adequately reflects the objective exchange value of the CCC, and it is recognized as an objective reason to deem that OD, etc. transferred the CCC’s stocks to the above transaction price from a reasonable economic perspective.

(8) Meanwhile, in the event that the Plaintiff pays the purchase price of the instant shares to an OOO of the sales price of the said LLLLLLLL stocks, and that the Plaintiff purchases the shares of a major shareholder of the CCC 2 without actually investing the funds, and then adjusts the shares ratio of its own stocks from OO to OO%, and adjusts the two major shareholders (no later than the sale of his own LLLLL stocks) through CCC, the Plaintiff may maintain the previous control over the LLLLL as it is, which is sufficient incentive for the Plaintiff to conclude the instant transaction.

(9) ADD, who was a director of CCC from April 15, 1989 to the time of the instant transaction, had been well aware of the growth process, revenue structure, business value, and future prospects of CCC. Therefore, it is very rare that it would have sold it to the Plaintiff at low price without properly grasping the actual value of CCCC.

(10) The plaintiff asserts that since Austria acquired the shares of this case at a price below 100 million won (OCC per share), OCC is very high per share. However, since Austria et al. started to purchase the shares of this case around 1986, and around that time, CC et al. seems to have been developing the automobile industry and rapidly developed as well, and it is too natural that the market price of the shares of this case should be determined as the value at the time of the transaction of this case, not Austria acquisition price, but as at the time of the transaction of this case. The plaintiff also calculated the market price at the market price at the time of the transaction of this case, not the price it acquired, and sold it to OCC at the market price at the time of the transaction of this case. In full view of the above, the plaintiff's above assertion is not persuasive.

(11) The Plaintiff asserted that, at the time of the instant transaction, DaD et al. purchased the instant land at a time of the instant transaction, it was necessary to pay the purchase price, but there is no objective evidence to deem that DaD et al. paid the purchase price of the instant land at the time, or that it was difficult to maintain economic conditions at the time. Rather, according to the Plaintiff’s statement, etc. that DaD et al. had been requested to purchase the instant stocks since two years prior to the instant transaction, there is no circumstance that DaD et al. should sell the instant stocks at a lower price than the actual value.

(12) The Plaintiff asserts that DaD, etc. has no reason to distribute profits to the Plaintiff through a low-price transfer, but the provision on deemed donation due to a low-price transfer under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that the transferor shall be deemed to have donated the amount equivalent to the corresponding profits to the assignee regardless of whether the transferor intended or intended to make the donation to the transferor. In addition, in light of the relationship between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s MaW and MaD, and the transaction of the instant stocks and the instant stocks, the instant transaction cannot be deemed an ordinary transaction between many and unspecified persons whose interests conflict, and it appears that the instant transaction was concluded by abnormal methods that manipulate the transaction price for mutual benefit.

(13) Therefore, in transferring the instant shares to the Plaintiff at a price significantly lower than the market price, there is no justifiable reason for transactional practice.

Sub-Resolution

Therefore, it is difficult to view that the Defendant did not properly reflect the objective exchange values of the instant shares, and that the instant transaction would properly reflect the objective exchange values, and that it is difficult to compute the market price by any other means, and it is legitimate to assess the value of the instant shares by using supplementary evaluation methods to make the disposition of the instant shares lawful.

Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.