Changwon District Court-2014-Gu Partnership-20986

Since the transaction value of the unlisted stocks in this case cannot be seen as the value including management rights, the transaction value of the stocks in this case cannot be recognized as the market price.

Although the plaintiff is the representative director, it is difficult to see that the claimant had the right of management separately, and considering the fact that the shares of this case did not undergo adequate appraisal by the outside appraisal organization, it is difficult to regard the transaction price of the shares of this case

Article 35 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

The revocation of revocation of disposition imposing gift tax on Busan High Court (Capwon) 2015Nu1077

AA

○ Head of tax office

Changwon District Court Decision 2014Guhap20986 Decided May 7, 2015

October 14, 2015

November 11, 2015

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The disposition of imposition of gift tax of KRW 000,000,000 against the Plaintiff on August 16, 2013 shall be revoked by the Defendant.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the use of Chapters 2 through 6 at the fifth bottom of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary Use]

In light of the aforementioned relevant laws and regulations, BB independently owns not less than 30/100 of the total number of shares issued by CCC and is the largest shareholder. BB and CCC are affiliated companies of the same business group controlled by BB, and the Plaintiff is the representative director of CCC, a business group controlled by BB, which is the same person, and BB is another business group affiliated to the said business group, and BB is a separate business group affiliated to the said business group, BB, a transferee, constitutes “a person affiliated with the Plaintiff, the transferor,” and “a person affiliated with the special relationship” (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Du1726, Sept. 13, 2013; Supreme Court Decision 2011Du17226, Sept. 13, 2013; Plaintiff, the transferor, based on the Plaintiff, does not constitute “a person affiliated with BB, the transferor,” but even based on the intent of the above Supreme Court decision, based on the Plaintiff, the taxpayer, the above, falls under “the Plaintiff and the person

Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit (as above, the Plaintiff and BB constitute a person in a special relationship, and on different premise, Article 35(1) and Article 35(2) of the Act should apply to the instant transaction, not to the instant transaction. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant disposition is unlawful is not reasonable, on the grounds that the price of the instant shares falls under “the price significantly higher than the market price prescribed in Article 35(2) of the Act, or the instant transaction falls under “the case where the instant transaction transfers at a price significantly higher than the market price without justifiable grounds in light of the practice

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.