Article 63 (Appraisal of Securities, etc.)

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

A. During the period from March 19, 2004 to May 18, 2004, 2004, ○○○○ Private Teaching Institute, Inc. (the first trade name was ○○ Private Teaching Institute, Inc., but its trade name was changed on May 28, 1996; hereinafter referred to as the “instant company”)’s 20,000 shares of ○○○○ Stock (hereinafter referred to as the “instant shares”) owned by ○○○ and five other parties (hereinafter referred to as “the instant shares transfer”).

Transfer Date

A transferee

Number of Stocks

Equity ratio (%)

Par value (won)

Transfer proceeds (won)

204.3.19

○○

4,000

20

10,000

40,000,000

31, 204

○ Kim Jong-woo

4,000

20

10,000

40,000,000

May 17, 2004

6,000

30

10,000

60,000,000

May 17, 2004

Park Jong-chul

2,000

10

10,000

20,000,000

May 18, 2004

Park -,00 Ma

2,000

10

10,000

20,000,000

May 18, 2004

Ma-young

2,000

10

10,000

20,000,000

B. On October 13, 2004, the Plaintiff Jeong-○ filed a return to the Defendant, including KRW 200,000,000,000 in total of the transfer price of the shares of this case, on or around March 2005, as the husband’s death on October 13, 2004 (hereinafter “the deceased”).

C. The Defendant conducted an investigation on the above inheritance tax, and determined that “the instant shares were trusted in title by pretending the transfer of the deceased’s reason,” and subsequently, notified the Plaintiff ○ Pursuant to Article 45-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8828, Dec. 31, 2007; hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), the gift tax pursuant to the title trust shall be levied on the Plaintiff ○ Pursuant to Article 45-2(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. The Plaintiff ○ Pursuant to Article 63(1)1(c) of the Act, notified each of the findings that the difference between the value of the instant shares assessed to be 35 e.g.,

D. The plaintiffs filed a pre-assessment review on the ground that "the shares of this case to the defendant on July 21, 2006" lent the name of the deceased, who was the self-employed, at the time of the incorporation of the company of this case, and it is the actual owner of the plaintiff ○ iron, and therefore, it does not constitute the inherited property of the plaintiff ○○." However, the defendant decided not to adopt the above assertion on August 30, 2006.

E. On September 1, 2006, the Defendant deemed that “the owner of the instant shares is not the Plaintiff, but the deceased is the deceased, and the shares of this case were held in title by pretending to transfer the deceased’s reason,” respectively, imposed KRW 187,258,780 of the instant shares, and KRW 762,463,070 of the inheritance by evaluating the value of the instant shares in accordance with the supplementary assessment method, and KRW 762,463,070 of the instant shares, respectively.

F. On December 5, 2006, the plaintiffs appealed with the National Tax Tribunal. The National Tax Tribunal decided to the effect that "the date of deemed donation of the stocks of this case" shall be May 30, 2004, and that "the date of deemed donation of the stocks of this case shall be May 30, 2004" shall be the date of deemed donation of the stocks of this case, and that the value of the stocks of this case shall be evaluated again, and the remaining request for a trial shall be dismissed."

G. On January 21, 2008, the defendant evaluated the value of the shares of this case in accordance with the above decision of the National Tax Tribunal, and corrected the disposition of imposition of gift tax amounting to KRW 91,583,960 on the plaintiff Jung-○, and KRW 710,880,200 on the plaintiff Jung-○, respectively (hereinafter referred to as "each disposition of this case").

[Ground of Recognition] In without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 3-1 to 5, Eul evidence 2-1 to 3, Eul evidence 3-1 to 4, Eul evidence 4-1, 2, Eul evidence 5, Eul evidence 6-1, 2, Eul evidence 9-1 to 14, respectively.

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

1) At the time of the establishment of the “○○ Foreign Language Institute”, the Plaintiff ○○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as the “○○”) was in a situation in which the Plaintiff ○○ (hereinafter referred to as the “○○”) was unable to operate its business under one’s own name due to the dishonor or the seizure of its entire assets, etc., the Plaintiff ○○○ (hereinafter referred to as the “○○”) made it inevitable to lend the name of the deceased, who was in the name of the Plaintiff ○○ (hereinafter referred to as the “○○”) and made it inevitable to conduct the business registration of the said ○○ Institute.

2) Therefore, since the Plaintiff ○ Steel is the actual owner of the instant shares, each of the instant dispositions based on the premise that the deceased is the owner of the instant shares is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 45-2 (Presumption of Donation of Title Trust)

Article 63 (Appraisal of Securities, etc.)

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) On October 29, 1979, Plaintiff ○○ cultural center was established for the purpose of publishing books, etc., and thereafter operated ○ cultural center as the representative director of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○, and around 1983, the Seoul regional tax office imposed a tax assessment of KRW 3 billion (6 billion for cultural ○○ and KRW 1.5 billion for defense tax and KRW 1.5 billion for global income tax on Plaintiff ○○○), and the tax assessment of KRW 3 billion was conducted by the Seoul regional tax office. Around December 1984, 1984, Plaintiff ○○○’s property owned by Plaintiff ○○ was entirely seized for tax delinquency by the tax authority.

2) Around 1983, Plaintiff ○ Steel filed an administrative litigation against the disposition of imposition of KRW 1.5 billion of the above corporate tax and defense tax against Plaintiff ○○○ in culture. The lawsuit continues for more than 10 years, which became final and conclusive by the Supreme Court on December 12, 1993, that “the disposition of imposition of approximately KRW 1.2 billion equivalent to approximately 81 billion of the above 1.5 billion won is unlawful, and thus the disposition of imposition of approximately 1.2 billion won is revoked,” and thereafter, the seizure by the tax authority on the property owned by Plaintiff ○○ Steel was entirely revoked around 194.

3) Meanwhile, on September 1, 1990, the deceased, who is the self-employed person of the Plaintiff ○ Steel, was in charge of the representative of the ○○ Foreign Teaching Institute established in the name of the Plaintiff ○○ Construction on behalf of September 1, 1990. As the said Institute was converted into a corporation on July 23, 1992, the deceased acquired 19,93 shares out of 20,00 shares in the process of the establishment of the instant company (the 7 shares shares were acquired from other shareholders at the expiration of six months after the incorporation of the instant company) and the representative director of the instant company was in charge from the time of the establishment of the instant company to April 19, 199.

4) During the period from March 19, 2004 to May 18, 2004, the Deceased transferred the instant shares to the Plaintiff, ○○, et al., the Defendant, after the Deceased’s death, reported to the Defendant the total amount of KRW 200,00,000 of the transfer price of the instant shares to the Defendant, including the inheritance tax, based on the inheritance tax’s taxable value. In the process of the Defendant’s investigation on the said inheritance tax conducted by the Defendant, “In the process of investigation on the instant inheritance,” even though the transferee of the instant shares was actually transferred the shares from the Deceased, the transferee deposited the transfer price to the deposit account in the name of the Deceased, but was returned by the transferee to the account, or the employees of the instant company deposited the transfer price to the deposit account in the name of the Deceased with the funds of the instant company, and then withdrawn the transfer price again by the transferee.”

[Basis] Evidence Nos. 4 through 13, evidence Nos. 16 through 18, evidence Nos. 6, evidence Nos. 7-1, 2, 8, evidence Nos. 9 through 14, respectively, 15, Eul evidence Nos. 18-6, and Eul evidence Nos. 19, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) The fact of ownership of shares is to be proved by the tax authority through the data, such as the list of shareholders, the statement of stock transfer or the register of corporate register, etc. However, even in cases where it appears to be a single shareholder in light of the above data, where there are circumstances such as where the name of a shareholder was stolen or the name was recorded in the name of a third party which is not the real owner, the actual owner who asserts that he is not a shareholder should prove that he is the nominal owner or the real owner who asserts that he is not the shareholder (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du1615, Jul.

2) In light of the above legal principles, according to the health class, Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 13, Gap evidence No. 14, Gap evidence No. 15, Eul evidence No. 19 through 23, Eul evidence No. 18-13, and witness Lee ○○'s testimony as to this case, the facts that at the time of the establishment of the ○○○○○'s establishment of the ○○○○○ Private Teaching Institute's establishment of the ○○○○○○○ Private Teaching Institute's establishment of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○ Private School's establishment of the ○○○ Private Teaching Institute's establishment of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Private School's establishment of the ○○○ Private Teaching Institute's establishment of the ○○○○○○ Private School's establishment of the ○○ Private Teaching Institute's establishment of trademark rights and service mark rights against the ○○ Private Teaching Institute's establishment of the ○○ Bank's establishment of loans and the ○○.

However, in light of the above facts, the above ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ shares were transferred at the time of the transfer of the shares, and the following circumstances, which can examine the overall purport of the entries and pleadings of the deceased at the time of the transfer of shares, 19,93 shares out of the shares at the time of the establishment of the instant company, and the remaining 7 shares were transferred from other shareholders at the time of 6 months after the establishment of the instant company. The minutes of the instant company’s inaugural general meeting or the minutes of the special meeting, which were based on the premise that the Plaintiff’s shares were transferred at the time of the transfer of shares to the Defendant by ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s shares, and that the shares were transferred at the time of the instant transfer of shares, and that the shares were transferred at the time of the instant company’s establishment of the instant company’s acquisition of shares under the premise that the said shares were owned by the Plaintiff’s representative director at the time of the instant company.

3) Therefore, the above assertion by the other plaintiffs is without merit, and each of the dispositions of this case based on the premise that the deceased is the owner of the shares of this case is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.