1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 2, and 3

(4) According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that: (a) an individual’s act of trading money between a juristic person and a specially related person constitutes donation pursuant to Article 41-4(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 1000; hereinafter “instant provision”); (b) an individual’s act of lending money at a reasonable interest rate under the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10423, Dec. 30, 2010); (c) an individual’s act of lending money at a reasonable interest rate under Article 31-7(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22042, Feb. 18, 2010) is not subject to the reasonable interest rate under the same statutory provision, which provides that the pertinent provision on lending money at a reasonable interest rate under the same statutory interest rate should not be applied to the respective separate interest rate under the same statutory provision on lending money between the juristic person and the pertinent provision on lending interest rate.

In light of relevant laws and legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors of misapprehending the legal principles on the scope of application of the provisions of this case

2. As to the fourth ground for appeal

Under the tax law, penalty taxes are administrative sanctions imposed, as prescribed by the individual tax law, in cases where a taxpayer violates various obligations, such as a return and payment of taxes, without justifiable grounds, in order to facilitate the exercise of the right to impose taxes and the realization of a tax claim. The taxpayer’s intention or negligence is not considered and does not constitute justifiable grounds that do not cause the taxpayer’s breach of the duty (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du10780, Jun. 24, 2004, etc.).

In light of the above legal principles and records, even if the court below erred by finding that the plaintiffs did not impose gift tax on the monetary transaction of this case on the basis of the interpretation of their names, it is just to determine that there was no justifiable ground for not imposing additional tax on the plaintiffs just because the tax authorities did not have any problem of denial of wrongful calculation under the Corporate Tax Act, which is the issue of monetary transaction below the appropriate interest rate under the provision of this case, once, unless there was no problem of denial of wrongful calculation under the Corporate Tax Act, and there was no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are 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 Kim Shin (Presiding Justice)