2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. On July 12, 2010, while the Nonparty established ○○○○○△△△△△△△△ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”), an unlisted corporation on July 12, 2010 and operated the business of losing ○○○○○○○○○○○” in Gangnam-gu Seoul ( Address omitted), the Nonparty acquired 50% shares of the said company, 20% shares, 40% shares, and 10% shares, respectively.

B. On July 31, 2010, the Nonparty entered into a contract with the instant company on the acquisition of all rights and obligations (excluding real estate and motor vehicles) regarding “the loss of ○○○○○○○○○○○” (excluding real estate and motor vehicles), and on August 2, 2010, the Nonparty sold the instant company’s rights and obligations under the contract.

C. According to Article 59(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22579, Dec. 30, 2010; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the Act”), the non-party assessed the value of the business right of the said loss as KRW 1,053,85,163 on the basis of the total net profit and loss of the production and appearance of the loss of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ ③

Table appraisal and calculation formula contained in the main sentence (the average amount of net profits and losses x 50%)- [the equity capital 】 1,053,855,163 won (the equity capital 】 the interest rate of time deposit x 10%) appraised amount 1,053,85,163 won 207 2008 2009 621,019,118 won, 1,051,629 won, 113,949,587 won

D. On August 12, 2010, immediately after the above transfer, the Nonparty died, and the Plaintiffs inherited the Nonparty’s property (hereinafter “the inheritee”). On February 9, 201, the Plaintiffs reported inheritance tax on the land, buildings and automobiles of the inheritee’s predecessor, the long-term outstanding amount due to the instant company, and the shares of the instant company (50%) as follows (hereinafter “stocks” among the total inherited property listed below).

A person shall be appointed.

E. From June 7, 2011 to September 7, 2011, the head of Seoul Regional Tax Office: (a) conducted an inheritance tax investigation for a period from June 7, 201 to (b) September 2, 2011; (b) assessed the operating right to the instant company as KRW 1,053,85,163 on the basis of the net profit and loss of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ KRW 50; (c) subsequently assessed the operating right at KRW 59,940,653; (d) reduced the individual’s excessive operating right to KRW 1,05,510 (i.e., KRW 1,05300; and (e) reduced the trademark right of this case.,

본문내 포함된 표 평가산식 Σ 상표권 권리에 의한 각 연도의 수입금액 (1+0.1)ⁿ n : 평가기준일로부터의 경과연수 (* 각 연도의 수입금액이 확정되지 않은 경우에는 평가기준일전 3년간 수입금액의 합계액 평균) 평가금액 4,630,270,873원 대여업체 (주)빈센치오 정선가족 (주)아인스M＆M (주)파에튼 인터내셔날 존속기간(10년) 2013. 5. 16. 2011. 11. 9. 2013. 5. 16. 2013. 5. 16. 경과연수 3 2 3 3 금액(원) 158,134,690 532,474,358 1,148,727,628 527,115,634 대여업체 반도광학 에스에이치티엘네트웍스(주) (주)성창FnG 존속기간(10년) 2020. 6. 21. 2013. 5. 16. 2013. 1. 11. 경과연수 10 3 3 금액(원) 1,326,393,979 843,385,015 94,039,569

F. On October 14, 201, the Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the notice of the results of the tax investigation, and filed a request for pre-assessment review with the Seoul Regional Tax Office on October 14, 201, and the Seoul Regional Tax Office ex officio corrected ex officio tax and public charges such as value-added tax. On the other hand, on the other hand, from the assessed trademark value of the instant case, KRW 993,914,510, which was deducted from the assessed tax amount of KRW 4,630,270,873, the remaining difference of KRW 3,636,356,363, which was deducted from the assessed tax amount of KRW 993,914,5

G. Since then, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office notified the Defendant of the status table of tax determination, including the Plaintiff’s inheritance tax attributed to year 2010. Accordingly, on December 1, 2011, the Defendant notified the Plaintiffs of the amount of KRW 253,56,670 (including additional tax returns of KRW 104,721,212), value-added tax for the second period of 2010, KRW 505,671,710, and KRW 254,255,490, respectively, for the second period of 2010 (including additional tax returns of KRW 104,721,212), and the amount of global income tax to be reduced by 254,255,490 (hereinafter the above disposition of inheritance tax and value-added tax).

H. The Plaintiffs filed an appeal on each of the above dispositions on February 28, 2012, but was dismissed by the Tax Tribunal on October 17, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 3 evidence, Eul's 1 through 4 (including Serial number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

① Article 59(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act provides that the method of appraisal of business rights shall be prescribed in the proviso, and it shall not be separately assessed in the case of purchased intangible property rights included in the business rights due to their nature. The purport of this provision is that in the case of purchased intangible property rights, it shall be separately assessed in the case of purchased intangible property rights, but it shall be evaluated as included in the business rights, such as general intangible property rights, in the case of purchased intangible property rights, even if purchased intangible property rights are included in the business rights due to their nature. However, even though the trademark rights of this case are not the intangible property rights, the defendant assessed them separately and assessed them, and thus,

② The proviso to Article 4(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10411, Dec. 27, 2010; hereinafter “the Act”) provides that a donee is not liable to pay taxes. Thus, the instant trademark right transferred to a profit-making corporation, which is not liable to pay gift tax, is deemed as a prior donation property and thus, the inheritance tax disposition of this case, which imposes an inheritance tax by adding the taxable amount of inheritance

③ If the trademark right of this case is to be assessed separately from the goodwill, the value shall be assessed on the basis of the “amount of income that shall be received in the future by the said right” under Article 59(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, but the Defendant assessed the trademark right on the basis of the “average amount of income in the last three years prior to the evaluation base date,” and

④ According to Article 59(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act and Article 19(2) and (3) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, the number of years elapsed from the evaluation date of intangible property rights, such as trademark rights, should be calculated by subtracting the number of years elapsed before the evaluation date from the duration of the relevant rights. However, in the case of the trademark right in this case, if the company which borrowed the trademark right in this case does not want to do so any longer, the trademark right in this case is de facto value lost. As such, the value of the trademark right in this case depends on whether the company actually borrowed the trademark in this case is the entity to borrow the trademark and the period of the lease contract. As such, if each trademark right in this case is deemed to be the duration of the lease contract and the company which borrowed the trademark does not generate any profit from the trademark in this case even before the expiration of the contract, the duration of the trademark right in this case is in accord with the substance over form principle.

⑤ The Defendant: (a) transferred its assets at a low price by the decedent to the instant company; and (b) subsequently, deemed that the instant company donated the said assets; and (c) even if the decedent transferred the assets at a low price to the instant company, it cannot be deemed as a donation for 50% of the shares of the decedent in the instant company

(6) Under Article 47-3(4)1(c) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the provisions of Article 47-3(4)1(c) of the Additional Tax Return shall not apply to cases where the tax base is determined at the price assessed under Articles 60(2) and (3) and 66 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. As the Defendant assessed the trademark of this case by applying Article 60(3) of the Act in assessing the trademark of this case, it is unlawful for the Defendant to apply the Additional Tax Return

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form "Related Acts and subordinate statutes" shall be as stated.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) The Defendant’s loss of ○○○○○, which had been operated by the decedent, operated by the decedent, divided the trademark rights into two types of businesses, such as release on bail, continuous clothes, clothes, clothes, bals, sunbs, bags, and walletss, and operated the business. From 2003 to 2011, the Defendant’s loss of ○○○○ and the amount of the instant company’s income (the sales revenue for year 201 is the tax base for value-added tax return) are as follows (the sales revenue for year 201 is the amount of sales revenue).

In the table (unit: KRW 2010 2007 2006 2005 2004 - 20003 - 2,178 5,110 4,969 3,474,79 300 1,9812,157 company of this case and 2,020 1,285 200 - 2,000 - 4,000 - 2,0584,625 2,90 - 2,000 - 4,07 2,000 - 4,000 - 4,07 2,000 - 4,07 2,000 - 4,05 2,07 - 4,07 - 4,04 of this case’s establishment

According to the trademark loan agreement entered into by the inheritee(○○○○○○’s loss), the inheritee entered into a trademark lease agreement with the following enterprises: (a) The inheritee entered into a trademark lease agreement with the following enterprises; (b) the minimum royalty is the loan revenue; and (c) if the basic royalty exceeds the minimum royalty, the inheritee entered into a contract on the condition that 4-5% of the turnover is paid as the basic royalty.

본문내 포함된 표 (단위 : 백만 원) 사용업체 상표권 (상표번호) 대여기간 사용료정산 주요내용 빈센치오 ○○○○ (상표등록번호 1 생략) 2007.12.10.～ 2013.2.28. 최소사용료 양말, 스타킹 07.12.10.～09.2.28. 100 09.3.1.～11.2.28. 매년 100 11.3.1.～12.2.29. 120 12.3.1～13.2.28. 150 기본사용료 매출액*4% 정선가족 ○○○○ (상표등록번호 2 생략) 2004.3.4.～ 2011.7.31. 최소사용료(매년) 500 골프의류 등 기본사용료 매출액*5% 아인스M＆M ○○○○ (상표등록번호 1 생략) 2001.10.1.～ 2011.9.24. 최소사용료(매년) 500 란제리, 언더웨어 기본사용료 매출액*4% (주)파에톤 인터내셔널(’11.5.31.폐업) ○○○○쥬얼리 (상표등록번호 1 생략) 2009.5.1.～2011.4.30. 최소사용료(매년) 500 주얼리, 귀금속 등 기본사용료 매출액*5% 반도광학(2012.3.31.만료) ○○○○ (상표등록번호 3 생략) 2005.3.31.～ 2012.3.31. 최소사용료(매년) 200 안경관련제품 기본사용료 매출액*5% 에스에이치티엘네트웍스(주) (10.12.27.폐업) ○○○○ (상표등록번호 1 생략) 2008.8.1.～2014.3.31. 최소사용료 가방, 지갑, 벨트, 구두, 와이셔츠 08.8.1.～09.3.30. 기본사용료 09.4.1.～00.3.31. 300 10.4.1.～12.3.31. 매년 500 이후 쌍방합의 - 기본사용료 매출액*4% (주)성창FnG ○○○○ (상표등록번호 4 생략) 2008.9.1～2011.12.31. 최소사용료 우산, 양산, 가죽장갑 08.9.1.～09.12.31. 50 10.1.1.～11.12.31. 매년 100 기본사용료 매출액*5%

Article 22(1) of the Korean Industrial Property Act provides that the Korean Industrial Property Protection Act shall provide that the Korean Industrial Property Protection Act shall apply to the Korean Industrial Property Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Korean Industrial Property Protection Act").

본문내 포함된 표 (단위 : 원) 사용법인 존속기간 만료 과거3년 평균수입 대여료수입 2009년 2008년 2007년 빈센치오 2013. 5. 16. 75,000,000 100,000,000 50,000,000 0 정선가족 2011. 11. 9. 536,911,644 500,000,000 500,000,000 610,734,932 아인스M＆M 2013. 5. 16. 544,817,661 500,000,000 500,000,000 634,452,984 (주)파에톤인터내셔널 2013. 5. 16. 250,000,000 250,000,000 0 0 반도광학 2020. 6. 21. 233,333,333 200,000,000 200,000,000 300,000,000 에스에이치티엘 네트웍스(주) 2013. 5. 16. 400,000,000 600,000,000 200,000,000 0 (주)성창FnG 2013. 1. 11. 50,000,000 50,000,000 0 0

D. Determination

(1) Whether a disposition imposing inheritance tax, etc. is legitimate by evaluating the trademark right of this case separately from the goodwill

(4) Article 59 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act provides that "The appraisal of property rights, such as industrial property rights, shall be conducted by such methods as prescribed by Presidential Decree, considering the value incurred for the acquisition of the relevant property or future economic interests," Article 64 (2) of the Act provides that the method of appraisal of the purchased intangible property rights may be exceptionally included in the goodwill, and the proviso to paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that "the value of the transferred intangible property rights, other than the purchased intangible property rights and the transferred intangible property rights, shall be calculated separately from the transferred intangible property rights," Article 64 (4) of the Act provides that "the value of the transferred intangible property rights, other than the transferred intangible property rights and the transferred intangible property rights," and Article 64 (5) provides that "the value of the trademark rights, other than the transferred intangible property rights and the transferred intangible property rights, which are evaluated by the defendant shall be calculated separately from the transferred intangible property rights and the value of the transferred property rights," and Article 59 (2) provides that "the value of the trademark rights and the transferred property rights shall be calculated separately for each year."

Whether a disposition imposing the inheritance tax by adding up the taxable value of the property transferred by the author to a profit-making corporation without liability to pay the gift tax is legitimate.

Article 13(1) of the Act provides that the property value of a donated property shall be added to the inherited property within a certain period prior to the commencement of inheritance by transferring it in the form of donation in order to prevent any act of avoiding or reducing the burden of inherited property by the progressive tax rate and thereby promoting fairness in tax burden. However, the Act provides that the value of a biological donated property added to inherited property shall be based on the market value as of the date of donation which is not the commencement of inheritance, and the amount of the gift tax on the donated property added to inherited property shall be deducted from the calculated amount of inheritance tax (see Supreme Court Decisions 2004Du14373, Jul. 6, 2006; 86Nu199, Dec. 23, 1986). The purport of the provision is that the Plaintiffs are exempt from the calculated amount of gift tax, even if the donee is a profit-making corporation under Article 4(1) of the Act, it is not necessarily a reason to exclude the amount of gift tax from the calculated amount of gift tax.

【Income amount” in the evaluation of trademark rights is legitimate in the disposition based on the income amount for the past three years.

On the other hand, Article 59(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act provides that "any patent right, utility model right, trademark right, design right, copyright, etc. shall be the aggregate of the amounts calculated in accordance with Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance on the basis of the amount of income for each year for which such right is to be received in the future. In such cases, the amount of income for each year has not been determined may be the average amount of income for each year as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance before the base date of appraisal." The following circumstances recognized as follows: ① the decedent entered into a trademark lease agreement with the KBBD and six enterprises, and the decedent was determined at the base date of appraisal, and the trademark right user fee for each year shall be at least 4-5% of the sales amount if there is a basic fee exceeding the minimum rental fee, and thus, the trademark right-related user fee for each brand for each year shall not be determined at least as the average amount of income for each year after the base date of appraisal, ② the fact that there is no reason to reduce the rental fee for each year after the death of the decedent.

Applicant Whether a disposition imposing inheritance tax, etc. is legitimate by evaluating trademark rights only on the basis of the duration of trademark rights (10 years) without considering the duration of trademark rights lending contracts, business closure, etc.

However, the following facts are examined: ① According to the above "Trademark Lease Contract Contents> (1) From March 4, 2004, the decedents are from her family members, from October 1, 2001, from shesian&M, from 10 December 10, 2007, from 199, shesian Domology from March 31, 2005, from shesian Domology from 1999.9.1, from 2008, she continues to renew and maintain a contract even at the time of death after concluding a lease contract, and it is difficult to determine the value of the relevant trademark upon the expiration of the contract term (the possibility that the relevant trademark rights may be leased to other enterprises even if the existing company and contract are terminated, or the business is discontinued, it is not reasonable to determine the duration of the trademark rights from 0 years to 10 years after the expiration of the term of trademark rights, and it is not reasonable to determine the duration of the trademark rights as 10 years after the expiration of the term of the trademark right.

(v) 50 per cent of the shares of the inheritee in the instant company; therefore, whether the scope of prior donation by the inheritee to the instant company is limited to 50 per cent of the trademark value;

In light of the following circumstances: (a) The instant company is a separate company that differs from the decedent and has a legal personality and can be deemed as having received a donation by the decedent by transferring the instant trademark right at a low price or without compensation; (b) as alleged by the Plaintiffs, 50% of the value of the instant trademark right is included in the ownership value of the decedent after the transfer of the business; and (c) is not included in the advance donation portion, it is reasonable for the Plaintiffs to report the value of the inherited property, including the amount equivalent to 2,315,135,436 won, which is 50% of the trademark right value in assessing the shares of the instant company that is the ownership of the decedent, while reporting the inheritance tax, and in such reporting, there is no difference in the value of the inherited property (the Plaintiff actually reported the shares of the instant company to KRW 50,000,000 in face value when reporting the inheritance tax). Each disposition of this case is legitimate by deeming the entire value of the trademark right of this case as the pre-donation property value, and this part of the Plaintiffs’

⑹ 상속세 신고불성실가산세 부과처분의 적법 여부

However, according to Article 27-2(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, where a tax base is determined at the value appraised pursuant to Articles 60(2) and (3) and 66 of the Act with respect to inherited property or donated property, an additional tax shall not be imposed on under-reported return. However, according to the above facts, the Plaintiffs did not make a prior donation on the right to operate the instant trademark right or ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ KRW 50% of the shares of the instant company, which are non-listed corporations for less than three years after the commencement of the business, on the basis of net asset value under Article 54(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, and thus, on the premise that the Plaintiffs did not make a report on under-reported return as the net asset value based on the trademark rights constituting the instant company’s assets and the instant trademark rights.

3. Conclusion

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

[Attachment Form 5]

Judges Kim Jong-jin (Presiding Judge)

1) The term "goods" means all tangibles and intangibles which have property value (Article 1(2) of the Value-Added Tax Act).

(2) The Constitutional Court en banc Order 2005Hun-Ga4 Decided July 27, 2006 is also the same purport.