The same shall apply to the order of the Gu office.

A. On October 0, 200, the Plaintiff participated in the establishment of qqq (hereinafter “instant domestic corporation”) and acquired 0 million shares of the instant domestic corporation (0.00% of the total number of issued shares) on October 0, 200. www (hereinafter “www”) by the same person as the Plaintiff and the founder participated in the establishment of the instant domestic corporation and acquired 00 million shares of the instant domestic corporation (0.00% of the total number of issued shares) on October 0, 2000.

(2) On October 0, 200, the defendant decided and notified 00,000 won of gift tax on 00,000,000 shares of the domestic corporation owned by the plaintiff who is a faithful public interest corporation (hereinafter referred to as "disposition in this case") in accordance with the taxation standard response of the Commissioner of the National Tax Service as follows. 2. 5% of the total number of shares issued by the domestic corporation; 2. 5% of the total number of shares issued by the domestic corporation is 0% of the total number of shares issued by the domestic corporation; 3. 5% of the total number of shares issued by the domestic corporation to be invested by the public interest corporation in accordance with Article 48(2)2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and Article 37(2) and (7) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Defendant’s determination on whether the shares obtained by the Plaintiff and www together exceed the 10% equity ratio is made by applying Article 37(7) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23040, Jul. 25, 201; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”). However, the instant provision does not include the grounds for delegation of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10907, Jul. 25, 2011; hereinafter “the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”) and does not have any effect contrary to the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. According to the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the instant disposition is unlawful.

2) Even if the validity of the instant provision of the Enforcement Decree is recognized, it should be interpreted as “stocks, etc. owned by another public service corporation, etc. that received property from the contributor in a special relationship with the pertinent domestic corporation at the time of acquisition.” However, since the Plaintiff’s contributor and the instant domestic corporation are not in a special relationship with each other, the Plaintiff’s shares of the instant domestic corporation held by www cannot be added to the determination as to whether the shares of the instant domestic corporation exceed 5% (or 10%)

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Whether Article 37(7) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is unconstitutional or unlawful

1) Article 48(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that “The value of the property received, as a contribution, by a public service corporation, etc., shall not be included in the taxable value of donated property: Provided, That in a case where the public service corporation, etc. receives the contribution of the stocks, etc. of a domestic corporation, the value of which is (1) the contribution; (2) the shares, etc. of the same domestic corporation held by the relevant public service corporation, etc. as at the time the contributor makes the contribution; (3) the contributor and the person specially related with the contributor exceed 5/100 (10/100 in the case of bona fide public service corporation, etc., hereinafter the same shall apply) of the total number

In addition, Article 48(2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "the head of a tax office, etc. shall consider the value prescribed by Presidential Decree as donated by a public service corporation, etc., in cases where a public service corporation, etc., to which the property is contributed pursuant to paragraph (1) falls under any of subparagraphs 1 through 4 and 6 of the following subparagraphs, and shall impose gift tax immediately on the relevant domestic corporation." In addition, Article 48(2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "The total sum of the acquired stocks, etc., (2) stocks, etc. of the same domestic corporation possessed by the relevant public service corporation, etc. at the time of acquisition, and (3) stocks, etc. of the

Meanwhile, Article 48 (1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and Article 48 (2) 2 of the same Act stipulate that "the calculation of the value exceeding 5/100 of the total number of outstanding stocks, etc. that are contributed or acquired by a public service corporation, etc. under the proviso of Article 48 (1) of the same Act and Article 48 (2) 2 of the same Act shall be made by aggregating the stocks, etc. of the same domestic corporation: ① the stocks, etc. contributed or acquired, ② the stocks, etc. possessed by the relevant public service corporation, etc. at the time of contribution or acquisition; ③ the stocks, etc. possessed by another public service corporation, etc. which has received property contribution from a person falling under paragraph (2) at the time of contribution or acquisition." Article 40 (1) 2 of the same

2) Article 48(1) proviso and Article 48(2)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that “The method of calculating the value exceeding 5/100 of the total number of issued and outstanding shares under the proviso of Article 48(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act” shall be as if it were determined. However, the main text of Article 48(2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act delegates the method of determining “the value which is deemed donated” rather than “the method of calculating the portion exceeding 5/100”, and Article 40(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that “The value which is deemed donated” is different from that of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act which is delegated by the proviso of Article 48(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act to the same effect that is not more than 5/100 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, but not more than 37(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act which is delegated by the former Enforcement Decree.”

It shall not be deemed that an indication or specification is possible in the interpretation of paragraph 2(2)2.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the technical matters necessary for the enforcement of the law are provided merely.

Therefore, the part concerning Article 48 (2) 2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act among the provisions of the Enforcement Decree of this case

section 75 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea; or

The Constitution is regulated by the Enforcement Decree even though it is not a "matters necessary for the enforcement of the law".

in violation of the regulations.

3) Whether the Enforcement Decree of the instant case violates the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

The sum of the provisions of the Enforcement Decree of this case and Article 48 (2) 2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

If the scope of shares is compared, Article 48(2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

Unlike the provisions of subparagraph 2, the scope of "other public service corporation, etc." shall be excluded in a special relationship with the relevant domestic corporation.

A person in a special relationship with a contributor who is not a public service corporation, etc. contributed by the contributor, the relevant domestic corporation

"Other public service corporation, etc. to which property has been contributed by a contributor in a special relationship";

shares of the relevant domestic corporation, which is held for reasons other than ‘contribution' by another public service corporation, etc.

(1) The Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act stipulates that the domestic corporation’s equity ratio exceeds 5/100 of the domestic corporation’s equity ratio;

The scope of taxation is wider than that of Article 48(2)(2).

However, the language and text of Article 48(2)2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is clearly and explicitly stated with the relevant domestic corporation.

within the same meaning of "contributions in relation to which they are contributed to public service corporations, etc. other than the relevant public service corporation, etc."

There is no room for other interpretation, as it regulates that the shares of the state corporation should be combined with shares, etc.

As shown in the history of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, Article 48(2)2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is amended in 1999.

Other public service corporations, etc. in the provision of adding up the shares of the domestic corporations, which are "owned";

The provision was amended to add up the shares of the domestic corporation receiving ‘contribution' from a particular contributor, and the award has been made.

The Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act uses the term "holding" and "contribution" separately, and the term "contribution" is "transfer of property."

On the other hand, the term "holding" means the status of the property taken place as a result of the act of transfer or acquisition.

As the meaning is, the amendment history or interpretation of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act includes the meaning of "holding" in the "contribution."

Nor can it be deemed that Article 3(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is applicable to the foregoing provision.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act before the amendment, the legislation is deemed to have been made to the effect that

In this regard, such legislation would make the amendment of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act in an ambiguous manner.

As claimed, each domestic corporation shall establish a number of public interest corporations by one contributor, respectively.

If it is necessary to prevent the control of a domestic corporation by holding stocks, it shall be necessary to do so.

The Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act itself shall have been amended accordingly.

In light of the above, Article 48 (2) 2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act of this case

It is illegal because it regulates the taxation requirements beyond the scope of taxation prescribed by the law.

4) Sub-determination

The provisions of the Enforcement Decree of this case are not based on the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act as the parent corporation, and evidence without the basis of delegation.

In expanding the taxation requirements under tax-related Acts, it is unlawful, and Article 48 (2) 2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

The provisions of Article 49(1) and (2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act shall not be effective to the extent that they violate the provisions.

to dispose of the shares held in excess of a certain ratio within a given period; and

Article 78(4) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act imposes additional tax on the violation of the above obligation.

Article 42(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, which is delegated under Article 49(2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, is effective

(1) The Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, in case where the provisions of the Enforcement Decree of this case are cited and the provisions of this case are invalidated.

In the application of Articles 49 and 78(4), there is a gap in taxation, and therefore, the Enforcement Decree of this case is provided.

No determination that the whole invalidation cannot be made).

D. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

As seen earlier, in determining the legitimacy of the instant disposition, the Enforcement Decree of the instant case

Since the provision of this case is not effective, the disposition of this case is subject to Article 48 (2) 2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act.

The legality should be determined depending on whether it is a case.

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff, a bona fide public-service corporation, is a domestic corporation of this case.

Only acquired 0 million shares (0.00% of the total number of outstanding shares) and otherwise 10% of the domestic corporation of this case

There is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff and the founder have shares. www for the same tasks

The Plaintiff’s founder of the instant domestic corporation’s shares (0.00% of the total number of outstanding shares)

It is not contributed to www. A special officer between the Plaintiff’s founder and the instant domestic corporation

As such, the number of shares acquired by the Plaintiff is not subject to Article 48(2)2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act.

The instant disposition is unlawful on a different premise. Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is justified, and the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant who is the losing party.

this decision is delivered with the assent of all Justices.