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

Cheong-gu Office

The disposition of imposition of KRW 000,000, imposed on the Plaintiff on February 14, 2013 by the Defendant, shall be revoked (a party death)

To the extent that it does not go against the will of the person, part of the disposal date was corrected.

A. He died on August 13, 2011 and succeeded to the Plaintiff, his spouse, ○○○○○○, the Masan’s real estate, the Maridong Co., Ltd.’s non-permanent stocks, etc.

B. In filing a return on inheritance tax on February 28, 2012, the Plaintiff, Jeongwon, and Jeong Jong-won shall calculate the inheritance value with the maximum amount of the publicly assessed individual land price or the maximum debt amount of the right to collateral security regarding a part of land, and with respect to the non-listed stocks of AAA 000 shares of a stock company, the Plaintiff calculated the inheritance value by calculating the market price of the said shares at the time of inheritance as KRW 00 per share at the time of inheritance on January 5, 2012, to 00 shares to 00 shares on January 2, 2012, to 00 shares, and on February 1, 2012, to 00 won per share with a face value of 00 won per share on February 1, 2012. The details are as follows:

C. On October 24, 2012, a regional tax office conducted a tax investigation on the details of inheritance tax returns by the Plaintiff, etc., and conducted an assessment of each real estate listed in the Nos. 1 and 2 above table (hereinafter referred to as "the No. 1 and 2 land of this case") with respect to the Plaintiff, etc., 00 won (i.e., land No. 1 + 000 won for land No. 2 of this case) which is the acquisition value of the inheritee. As to the shares listed in No. 3 of the same table (hereinafter referred to as "the shares of this case"), the head of the regional tax office determined that the Plaintiff’s request for an assessment of the inheritance tax and the net asset value per share pursuant to Article 54(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23527, Jan. 25, 2012; hereinafter the same) should be determined by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service prior to the assessment of inheritance and gift tax.

D. Accordingly, on February 14, 2013, the director of the Central Regional Tax Office re-assessments the value of the instant shares as KRW 000 per share, and accordingly, the Defendant, the head of the competent tax office, notified the above co-inheritors, including the Plaintiff, of the payment of KRW 000 of the inheritance tax (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

Facts without any dispute arising in recognition, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 through 5, and 12 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the defendant's calculation of inheritance value of each land and shares of this case is unlawful for the following reasons.

1) The instant land No. 1 purchased at a price lower than the market price during the period between one year and six years from the commencement date of inheritance for the purpose of the instant company’s golf course development business, which is a golf course operating company, and one year and two years. The purchase price cannot be deemed as the normal market price at the time of the commencement of inheritance.

2) The instant land No. 2 is reasonable to calculate the maximum debt amount, which is the maximum debt amount of the right to collateral security.

3) Since the instant shares were traded at KRW 000 per share, it must be assessed on the basis of the transaction price.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Determination as to the computation of inheritance value of each land of this case

A) Article 60(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10907, Jul. 25, 201; hereinafter the same) provides that "the value of an asset on which inheritance tax or gift tax is levied under this Act shall be the current market price as of the date on which the inheritance commences or the donation commences (hereinafter referred to as "base date")." Paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that "if the market price under Article 60(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is freely traded between many and unspecified persons, it shall include the value generally recognized as the current market price as prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as the expropriation price, public sale price, and appraisal price." In addition, Article 49(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "if it is difficult to calculate the market price, the value of the asset at issue shall be deemed as the current market price for six months (3 months in cases of donated property; hereinafter referred to as "the current market price before or after sale price is determined as one of the following six months.).

B) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statement and pleading as to Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 3, No. 4, and No. 5, the acquisition price of each of the instant land between September 30, 2009 and January 19, 201. The officially announced value of each of the instant land from 2009 to 2011 is so small each year, and the Jungbu Director of the Regional Tax Office cannot apply the main sentence of Article 49 (1) of the Enforcement Decree by 6 months before the commencement date of inheritance, which is the date of acquisition of each of the instant land by the ancestor No. 2, since the price increase after the date of acquisition of each of the instant real estate by the ancestor No. 3, No. 3, No. 4, and No. 5, and the overall purport of each of the instant land No. 97, which had been evaluated by the court below, since most of the instant land acquired by the ancestor No. 1, there was no change in the form and surrounding environment. 94.

On the other hand, comprehensively taking account of the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the plaintiff can arbitrarily request two appraisers to appraise the market price at the time of commencing the inheritance of the land of this case and present 000 won or 000 won as the market price at the time of commencing the inheritance of the land of this case. According to the above appraisal amount, according to each appraisal amount, the above appraisal amount is limited to 000 won or more for referring to the market price at the time of general transactions. However, each appraisal result is limited to those made for referring to the market price at the time of general transactions, and as long as there are no special circumstances such as price fluctuation from the acquisition date to the commencement date of the inheritance of the deceased, the defendant can calculate the inheritance price based on the acquisition price. As such, the market price at the time of commencing the inheritance pursuant to Article 60 (1) and (2) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and Article 49 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act based on its delegation, as stated in Article 60 (3) of the same Act, the value calculated based on the above appraisal result cannot be deemed unlawful.

2) Determination as to the computation of inheritance value of the instant shares

In the case of unlisted stocks with low market value, where there is a transactional fact, the transaction value shall be deemed the market value and the stock value shall not be evaluated by supplementary evaluation methods stipulated in the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. However, in order to recognize the transactional example as the market value, the market value means the objective exchange value formed by the general and normal transaction. Thus, the circumstances that can be seen as properly reflecting the objective exchange value at the time of the donation should be acknowledged (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du26988, Apr. 26, 2012).

In full view of the purport of the statement and arguments in the health account, Eul evidence Nos. 15 through 17 as to this case, it can be acknowledged that the shares of this case are purchased at a par value of 5,000 won per share, which is the price recommended by the plaintiff, without evaluating the value of the shares of this case, as all of the plaintiff's Dozers who purchased part of the shares of this case. Such price determination cannot be calculated based on the market price of the shares of this case because it is difficult to view it as an objective exchange price formed by the general and normal transaction. Ultimately, other transaction cases cannot be discovered in addition to the above transaction cases, and it is difficult to continue the business of AAA (refer to the plaintiff 5 pages) and there is no dispute between the parties (refer to the plaintiff 5 pages), the price of the shares of this case shall be evaluated as net asset value per share pursuant to Article 54 (4) 1 and 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. Accordingly, the defendant's calculation of this part of this part is legitimate, and there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff's property value of AA.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.