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

A. The plaintiff Lee Dong-A died on October 4, 2007, as the wife, the plaintiff ChoB, and the MediationCC had children of the network Cho Jae-D.

B. On April 2, 2008, the plaintiffs calculated the value of the right to purchase ○○○○○-dong 16-1, 806, 38 square-type apartment units (hereinafter "the apartment unit of this case") owned by the network ○○○○-dong 16-1, 306, and 38 square-type apartment units (hereinafter "the apartment unit of this case") as the value of the right to purchase ○○-type apartment units (hereinafter "right to purchase ○○-type apartment unit of this case") at KRW 877,50,000, and reported the inheritance tax by calculating the taxable value of the inheritance as KRW 5,158,890,482 as stated in the pertinent item.

C. The Defendant: (a) revised the market price of the instant apartment to KRW 1,435,00,000 on December 3, 2007, on the ground that the right to purchase ○○○○○○-dong, ○○○-dong, 16-1, 207, 4207, and 38-1 (hereinafter referred to as “non-school apartment”) was traded in KRW 1,435,00 on December 3, 2007; (b) revised the market price of the instant apartment unit to KRW 1,435,00,000 on the ground that the instant apartment unit was traded in KRW 1,435,00,00,000; and (c) revised the inheritance tax base as stated in the corresponding table, including the value of other inherited property, and (c) imposed the Plaintiff’s tax on July 8, 2009, including the inheritance tax base of KRW 35,474,974 (including additional tax); and (B); and (c) imposed on each of the Plaintiff 268.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, 4, Eul Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5

A. The plaintiff's principal

In light of the fact that the ○○○ apartment reconstruction project association appraised the apartment price of this case at KRW 877,500,000 on August 3, 2006, which appears to be the amount higher than the market price, and the sale case of the right subject to comparison was made after the commencement date of inheritance, and the sale case at the time was one transaction at the time of the transaction, and there was no objective price data publicly announced by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, the National Tax Service, and the National Bank, etc. concerning the right to sell this case at the time of the commencement of inheritance, and there was no objective price data publicly announced by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, the sales price of the right subject to comparison cannot be deemed to have objectively reflected the market price of the right to sell this case at the time of the commencement date of inheritance. Accordingly, the disposition of this case, which the Defendant reported the sales price of the right subject

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) In full view of the main sentence of Article 60(1) and Article 60(2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8828 of Dec. 31, 2007; hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and Article 49(1) and (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20323 of Oct. 15, 2007; hereinafter the same), the value of the property on which the inheritance tax is levied shall be the market value as of the commencement date of the inheritance, and the market value shall be the value deemed ordinarily established where there is a transaction fact with respect to the pertinent property between many and unspecified persons for a period not exceeding 6 months before or after the base date of the appraisal, including the transaction value, and on the other hand, the sales value, etc. of the pertinent property that is identical or similar to the pertinent property shall be considered as the market value.

(2) The following facts are acknowledged according to the purport of the entire pleadings and the entirety of the arguments, as to the instant case’s health team, the aforementioned evidence, evidence Nos. 5, and evidence Nos. 4, 6 and 7.

① On August 3, 2006, an appraiser at the request of ○○○ apartment reconstruction and rearrangement project association has appraised the value of the instant apartment as KRW 877,500,000.

② At the time of April 30, 2007, the standard market price of the apartment of this case was KRW 1,200,000,000, and the standard market price of the comparative apartment was KRW 1,064,00,000.

(3) The market price or reasonable price of the apartment of this case, which is shown in the meeting of reasonable prices of collective housing in the national tax integration system and in the real estate test place, between January 1, 200 and May 207, shall be as follows:

(3) In light of the following circumstances found from the above facts and the following circumstances: although the apartment of this case and the comparative apartment are different in the number of floors, the right to sell the apartment of this case and the right to comparable apartment of this case are identical or similar to that of the same apartment in the same complex; and as at April 30, 2007, the standard market price of the apartment of this case was lower than that of the comparative apartment of this case at the time when the commencement date of the inheritance begins, it is deemed appropriate to deem that the sales price of the comparative apartment of this case is ordinarily established when the right to sell the apartment of this case is freely traded between many and unspecified persons. The appraisal result of the appraiser's right to the apartment of this case for reconstruction was not only appraised on August 1, 2006, which was 14 months before the commencement date of the inheritance, but also the expected profit to be allocated 58 square meters of the newly constructed apartment of this case. Thus, it is difficult to view the appraisal price as the market price at the time of the commencement date of the inheritance.

(4) Therefore, the instant disposition that the Defendant deemed the sales price of the comparable right as the market price of the instant sales right is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.