(a) the portion exceeding the amount indicated in the column of “political tax amount” among the disposition details concerning the Plaintiff Company and the disposition disposition of imposition of corporate tax for the remaining amount after the reduction or correction of the “reasonable tax amount” as to the respective amount recorded:

(b) Collection disposition of retirement income tax of 187,120,090 won, which reverts to the year 2012;

All cancellations.

2. On June 1, 2015, the head of the tax office’s disposition imposing the gift tax of KRW 15,243,685, which was imposed on Plaintiff NewB on June 1, 2015, in excess of KRW 13,868,850, shall be revoked.

3. On June 1, 2015, the head of Samsung District Tax Office’s disposition imposing gift tax of KRW 15,243,685 on Plaintiff NewCC for the imposition of gift tax of KRW 13,868,85 in excess of KRW 13,850 shall be revoked.

4. On June 1, 2015, the part that exceeds KRW 862,417,420 among the disposition of imposition of inheritance tax of KRW 2,734,082,231 in 2012 against Plaintiff NewD, NewB, NewCC, NewE, NewF, and SongG shall be revoked.

5. The plaintiff's claim against the director of Yongsan Tax Office, the remainder of the plaintiff's claim against the director of the defendant distribution tax office, the remainder of the plaintiff's claim against the director of the plaintiff's Samsung Tax Office, and the remainder of the plaintiff's remaining claim against the plaintiff's defendant Samsung Tax Office and the plaintiff's newD, newB, newCC, newE, newF, newG, and SongG's remaining claims against each defendant'

6. Of litigation costs;

A. The part arising between the Plaintiff A and the Defendant Young Military Tax Office is by the Head of Yeongdeungpo Tax Office,

B. The part arising between the Plaintiff NewD and the Head of Yongsan Tax Office is as follows:

C. 9/10 of the portion arising between the Plaintiff NewB and the Director of the Tax Office of Distribution shall be the Plaintiff NewB;

The remainder is the director of the tax office of distribution,

D. Among the parts arising between the Plaintiff NewCC and the Defendant Samsung Head of the tax office, 9/10 is the Plaintiff NewCC,

As to the remainder, Defendant Samsung Head of the Tax Office;

E. Between the Plaintiff NewlyD, NewB, NewCC, New EE, NewF, SongG and Defendant Dongjak Head of Dongjak Tax Office

1/3 of the parts arising under this section shall be the Plaintiff NewD, NewB, NewCC, NewE, NewF, and TransportationG:

The remainder of the defendant's motion tax office

Each.1. The Defendant’s gift tax on the donation made on August 13, 2012 to the Plaintiff on December 31, 2009

The imposition of KRW 1,531,301,80 (including additional taxes) shall be revoked.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The disposition of imposition of gift tax of KRW 728,297,127 on June 1, 2015 by the Head of Yongsan Tax Office and the Head of Yongsan Tax Office to the Plaintiff NewCC on June 1, 2015, the disposition of imposition of KRW 15,243,685 on the gift tax of KRW 15,243,685 imposed on the Plaintiff NewCC on June 1, 2015, the disposition of imposition of KRW 15,243,685 imposed on the Plaintiff NewCC on June 1, 2015, and the disposition of imposition of KRW 15,243,685 imposed on the Plaintiff NewCC on June 1, 2015 by the Head of Yongsan Tax Office and the Head of Yongsan Tax Office shall be revoked in all. < Amended by Act No. 11473, Jun. 23, 2012; Act No. 13374, Jun. 1, 2015>

(a) Details of the disposition;

On June 1, 2015, the director of the tax office of the defendant Young Military Tax Office (hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff company") has determined and notified corporate tax as stated in the separate sheet "attached Form 1,268,901,00 won, and the remaining amount of tax after the reduction or correction of the legitimate tax amount" (hereinafter referred to as "retirement benefits of this case") to four clean rooms (Clean Room, D/L 4), string 8 strings, strings, strings, strings, strings, strings, film 6 strings, and strings, hereinafter referred to as "strings" in the building account, even though 30 years of service life (8 years of service life), as stated in the "attached Form 1,268,901,000 won, and the remaining amount of tax after the reduction or correction of the corporate tax amount" (hereinafter referred to as "retirement benefits of this case").

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 8 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings, or whether the disposition of the corporate tax of this case is legitimate

According to Article 23(1) of the Corporate Tax Act, Articles 26(1) and 28(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 15(3) [Attachment Table 5] and attached Table 6 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, all buildings, including attached facilities, shall be depreciated according to the service life (30-50 years, the service life of 40 years) selected and reported by the corporation within the scope of service life, and the service life and the straight line method, and the assets used for the manufacturing business of chemicals and chemical products during the manufacturing business shall be depreciated according to the service life (6-10 years, the service life of 8 years) selected and reported by the corporation within the scope of service life (6-10 years, and

In addition to the overall purport of the pleadings, the following facts may be recognized. Each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 20, 21, 30 through 32 (including paper numbers), and each video of Gap evidence Nos. 22 and 23.

① On October 31, 2006, the Plaintiff Company depreciated 2 factory film 5, 2 factorySL clean room and film 3 film studio acquired on October 31, 2007 by applying the standard lifespan of buildings, etc. (30 years of service life, and straight line method).

Since 2010, Plaintiff Company acquired the instant clean studio and depreciated by applying the lifespan by type of business (8 years of service and the fixed rate method) by deeming the clean studio in this case as machinery and equipment.

② Machines d/L 4, which are installed with the studio of this case, are used in producing studio by using strawing two materials with different physical properties; studio 6, 7, and 8, studio 6,7, and 8, the electronic materials protection films produced as vertical length, and film 6, the film is the machinery producing electronic materials protection films.

In the case of a dust plant heating materials, if foreign substances are mixed in the production process, it may be impossible to maintain the state of dust, or the function of sheating may be lowered, and in the case of an electronic material protection film, if the production of foreign substances is conducted in a space where dust, etc. is not properly removed from a space where foreign substances are mixed and adhered to DNA products, the function thereof may not be fulfilled.

③ The clean studio in the Plaintiff Company’s factory is separately installed only for the specific process equipment portion. In particular, film 6 was transferred to the studio factory in an existing Ansan Factory, and the studio in the instant case was also transferred.

④ The clean studio of this case is always controlling dust, etc. to a certain level by circulating air through high-performance studs.

The machines installed with the instant clean studio, like the above facts, are the machinery necessary for producing studs or electronic materials protection films, where foreign substances are mixed. The instant clean studio functions to maintain dust, etc. at a certain level or below through high-performance studs, etc., and is not used for all processes, and is separately installed and used only for the specific process facility part, not for all processes. Since it is separated and relocated from the existing installation site due to the transfer of machinery, it can be deemed as an accessory facility for plant management, rather than for a building, it constitutes an essential element to prevent mixing in the operation, etc. of machinery for the production of studs or electronic materials protection films.

In the meantime, the director of the tax office of Yeongdeungpo-gu asserts that the plaintiff company cannot appropriate the depreciation costs by reducing the depreciation costs from 30 years to 8 years without obtaining approval for the change of the Commissioner of the competent Regional Tax Office. However, Article 23(1) of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 26(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that the corporation should report the depreciation method for the existing facilities such as the clean room in the case of this case as the accessory facilities of the building. However, in the case of the clean room in the case of this case, the plaintiff company reported and applied the depreciation method and the lifespan of the equipment in the premise that it is difficult to regard the facilities as the accessory facilities in the case of the building in the case of the clean room in the case of this case, the method of calculating the depreciation method and lifespan of the equipment in the case without obtaining approval for the change of the director of the competent tax office is unlawful.

C. Whether the collection disposition of this case is legitimate

A director’s retirement allowance is a kind of remuneration paid in return for the performance of duties while in office and not stipulated in the articles of incorporation pursuant to Article 388 of the Commercial Act. If the articles of incorporation provide that the amount shall be determined by a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders, a director’s claim for retirement allowance may not be exercised without a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders on the amount, payment method, and payment period (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da25123, Dec. 10, 2004).

Meanwhile, according to Article 147(1) of the Income Tax Act, where a withholding agent, who is liable to pay retirement income, fails to pay retirement income between January and November of the pertinent taxable period by December 31, it shall be deemed that such retirement income was paid on December 31. The purpose of Article 147(1) of the Income Tax Act, which is the legal fiction of the payment of retirement income, is to impose withholding tax on a withholding agent by deeming that retirement income was paid in the pertinent taxable period even in a case where a ground for payment of retirement income occurred clearly and a payment is delayed due to any reason, and thus, the withholding agent’s withholding duty is premised on the establishment of a withholding agent’s liability for tax withholding. As such, the withholding agent’s withholding duty is based on the premise that a withholding agent’s right to seek retirement income from a retired person is considerably mature and determined, and thus, the withholding agent also has a withholding duty for such retirement income. A director’s retirement allowance is a kind of remuneration paid for the performance of his/her duties, unlike the retirement allowance for workers under the Labor Standards Act.

In addition to the whole purport of the pleadings, the following facts may be acknowledged.

① The Plaintiff Company’s articles of incorporation did not have any provision regarding the calculation of retirement allowances for executive officers, as follows. As amended on December 27, 201, Article 36 was newly established regarding the calculation of retirement allowances for executive officers.

Article 26 (Resolution and Quorum of General Meeting of Shareholders)

(2) Except as otherwise provided in Acts and the articles of incorporation, the following cases shall require the concurrent vote of a majority of the shares present and of at least 1/4 of the total number of issued

2. Determination of salaries, bonuses, remuneration and retirement allowances of directors and auditors;

Article 36 (Calculation of Retirement Allowance of Officers)

(1) The calculation of retirement allowances for executive officers shall be [average wages ¡¿ the number of service years by relevant class ¡¿ payment coefficient].

(2) The payment coefficient shall be as follows:

Payment Index of Position Payment Criteria

The number of years of service at the president, the relevant class, and one year and three.0 months;

The number of years of service at the vice president, corresponding class, and working for each one year and two.5 months.

The number of years of service at the senior secretary, the managing director, and the relevant class of directors, each year 2.0 months;

② On July 26, 2012, New HH died on the part of the representative director of the Plaintiff Company, and thereafter, after the death of New HH (hereinafter “the deceased”), there was no resolution by the general meeting of shareholders on the determination of retirement allowances against the deceased at the Plaintiff Company.

On July 26, 2012, the Plaintiff Company paid KRW 941,818,580 to the Deceased’s retirement allowance, and collected and paid KRW 41,203,650 of the source retirement income tax for the retirement allowance. On December 20, 2012, the Plaintiff Company received the approval of the Plaintiff NewD, the president, and the Plaintiff’s NewB, the president, and paid the said retirement allowance to the inheritor.

Meanwhile, both Plaintiff NewD and NewB were the successors of the deceased, and Plaintiff Company’s shares were 52% of Plaintiff NewD, Plaintiff NewB had 26.5% of Plaintiff NewB, and Plaintiff NewCC owned 21.5% of Plaintiff NewCC’s shares since June 2012.

③ In calculating the corporate tax base in the year 2012, the director of the tax office of defendant Young-gu included the retirement allowance in the calculation of the plaintiff company in the calculation of the income tax base.

④ Around December 2015, the Plaintiff Company paid 2,604,125,820 won (in calculation according to the articles of incorporation, KRW 1,302,063,429), 93,938,870 (in cases of calculation according to the articles of incorporation, KRW 74,27,250) as retirement allowance, which exceeds the amount calculated pursuant to Article 36 of the Articles of incorporation of the Plaintiff Company.

According to the above facts, the time, method, etc. of payment of retirement pay for the deceased was not determined because the resolution was not made at the general meeting of shareholders (as seen in the examples of other executives, the payment of retirement pay is not made as stipulated in the articles of incorporation of the Plaintiff company, such as the payment of more retirement pay than the retirement pay calculated in accordance with the articles of incorporation of the Plaintiff company, and it is difficult to deem the amount to have been determined as to whether the deceased’s heir could waive it. The deceased’s heir is the shareholder of the Plaintiff company, and the president of the Plaintiff company and the president of the Plaintiff, and newB were also determined as the president of the Plaintiff company, and the newB did not make a decision on the payment of retirement pay of the deceased up to the present time, or did not request the Plaintiff company to pay additional retirement pay. In full view of these circumstances, it is unlawful in the premise that the articles of incorporation of the Plaintiff company related to the calculation of retirement pay does not have any other evidence to acknowledge the possibility of the right to retirement pay of this case.

2. Plaintiff Newly Inserted by Act No. 1054, Dec. 1, 200>

(a) Details of the disposition;

On April 30, 2006, Plaintiff NewD received 600 shares issued by Plaintiff Company and 2,100 shares issued by Plaintiff Company (hereinafter “instant shares”) from Nonparty II, and paid KRW 1,06,86,950 in total of KRW 241,396,270,819,490,680.

The Head of Yongsan Tax Office decided and notified KRW 728,297,127 on June 1, 2015 to the Plaintiff NewlyD on the ground that the deceased was not this KK and the changed II, and thus, the donor of the shares was not this KK and the changed II. (The Head of Yongsan Tax Office did not grant a tax credit in relation to the gift of the shares).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 5, 6, 9 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Determination

1) Whether the deceased has held title trust on the shares of this case

The witness II testified to the effect that he was entitled to receive the instant shares from the deceased, not from title trust, but from the Plaintiff Company’s partnership, and was more than 10 years old, and that he donated the instant shares to the Plaintiff NewD on the condition that he was fully entitled to retirement allowances.

However, in light of the following facts and circumstances, the evidence Nos. 11 through 13, 16, and 17, and the witness’s partial testimony No. 2, which can be recognized by adding the whole purport of the pleadings, the testimony of the witness re-interest and the facts cited by the Plaintiff DaD cannot be deemed as having received the instant shares from this KK and the Change II, and the imposition of gift tax on the Plaintiff DaD for the year 2006, which was made on the premise that the deceased was donated by the deceased, is legitimate.

① On August 20, 1976, the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy entered the Plaintiff Company as the head of the production department to take overall charge of the production management and product development, and he resigned on January 11, 2015, and this K was employed as a member of the Plaintiff Company on August 20, 1976, and currently worked as a managing director of the Plaintiff Company.

On the other hand, the details of stock changes of the Plaintiff Company are as follows.

Division: 2006, 1991 1996, 1982, 1987

NewD 2,000 Note 3,750 Note 5,910 Note 5,910 Note 11,820 Note 13,500 Note 15,600

Category II 250 Note 500 Note 750 Note 750 Note 1,500 Note 1,500 Note -

East----300 Jeju 600 note 600-

The LL had participated in the establishment of the Plaintiff Company in around 1976, but was withdrawn from around March 3, 1978, and prepared a certificate of stock transfer to 250 shares of the Plaintiff Company, but there was no change in II as to the reason why the shares were transferred from LL (it is unclear as to which compensation the LL transferred the shares to 2).As to the change in II, the LL received the AA premium from the Deceased at the time of 1980, 1982, and 191, and paid the transfer of the shares in this case, and it did not know the value of the shares in this case. Considering that there were no circumstances to deem that the transfer of the shares in this case was in the process of the acquisition of shares in the name of II, or the source of the capital increase in AAB had exercised the right to dispose of the shares in this case or exercised the right to dispose of the shares in this case, it appears that the shares were changed in the name of the Deceased.

② At the time of the investigation by the Daejeon Regional Tax Office, Plaintiff DaD, changed II, and this K made a statement to the following purport, and such statement is difficult to be deemed as having been made against the intent of the parties, and the content of the statement is detailed and it is not difficult to use as evidentiary materials for specific facts due to lack of the content thereof. The change II testified that, while recognizing the title trust by the tax accounting corporation at the time of the investigation, Plaintiff Dodddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd

【Supplementary II Answer】

㉠ 원고 회사가 설립된 지 1~2년 후에 원고 신DD로부터 주식을 본인에게 명의신탁하겠다는 이야기를 들은 적이 있고, 본인 명의의 주식으로 인하여 원고 회사노조원들에게 괜한 오해를 받을 수 있어서 원고 신DD에게 본인 명의의 주식을 빨리 가져가라고 말한 적이 있다.

In around 2006, the Republic of Korea received a certificate of the personal seal impression from the plaintiff DaD, and delivered it to the plaintiff DaD along with the certificate of the personal seal impression, and it is known that the principal did not prepare a gift contract, and that the plaintiff DaD was prepared with the identification of the plaintiff DoD.

B. The first time was not involved in any gift act, and the first time was merely the act of lending the name, and the second time was believed to be dealt with all kinds of affairs, so it was not concerned about whether the plaintiff's new shares were subject to disadvantage in the process of return.

【Noh K Inquiries】

After about 10 years have passed since the establishment of the Plaintiff Company, it was said that the name of the Plaintiff Company changed to the name of the Company on the wind that the Plaintiff Company retired from the title trust of the Plaintiff Company.

In around 2006, the Republic of Korea received a certificate of the personal seal impression from the plaintiff DaD, and delivered it to the plaintiff DaD along with the certificate of the personal seal impression, and it is known that the principal did not prepare a gift contract, and that the plaintiff DaD was prepared with the identification of the plaintiff DoD.

From the beginning of the BJ, it was thought that the instant shares were not shares of the principal, so they were not originally returned to the principal, and they were not involved in any gift act, and since the Plaintiff was believed to merely lend the name to the principal, it was believed that the Plaintiff was able to process all kinds of work, the Plaintiff was not aware of whether they were disadvantaged in the process of return.

【Plaintiffs Newly Inserted by Presidential Decree No. 2010

The shares in the name of the Republic Corporation, from the deceased, are known so far as they are themselves, and the principal can be responsible for the operation of the company's shares with more than 50% of the shares of the company and avoid any disturbance among the siblingss.

The reason why the transfer of the Plaintiff Company’s shares 250 shares was changed from the LL on March 3, 1978, is due to the fact that the LL was retired from the hospital at the time, and it is well known that the LL was transferred to the Party II as to whether the LL had several main shares at the time and how it was changed.

B. At the time of establishment of the Plaintiff Company, the deceased can be deemed to have donated 50% or more of the total issued shares to the principal.

2) Scope of deduction from the reported tax amount

According to Article 69(2) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9916, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter “former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”), where the tax base of gift tax is reported within a given period, an amount equivalent to 10/100 may be deducted from the amount of gift tax calculated. Since it is practically impossible for the tax authority to investigate and impose both individual gift acts, it is practically impossible for the tax authority to impose gift tax upon the taxpayer to be able to receive benefits, such as tax credits, if the taxpayer performs his/her duty

Meanwhile, according to Article 68 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and Article 65 (2) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, a person liable to pay a gift tax shall attach documents evidencing the type, quantity, appraised value, etc. of donated property necessary for calculating the tax base of the gift tax to the report when he/she files the tax base, and a transcript of the donee’s removed copy and a transcript of the family register of the donor (the current Act and subordinate statutes pertaining to a donee’s removed copy and a certificate of family relations recorded in the donor’s family relations). It can be deemed that the person liable to pay a gift tax has fulfilled his/her duty to cooperate with the tax authority by submitting the above documents, etc.

As seen earlier, since the Deceased’s title trust of the shares in this case was held by the deceased in title II and this K, the Plaintiff’s newD also could have received tax credits, etc. from the deceased, not this K, at the time of reporting the gift tax base, but did not do so. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise is not accepted (it is alleged that the Plaintiff erred in the factual and legal assessment of the elements constituting the tax base, but in the case of this case, the gift tax is different (Article 48(2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act), and the Plaintiff’s newD also appears to have been aware of the trust of the shares in this case in light of the statement at the time of the investigation, and it is difficult to view that it merely erred in the factual and legal assessment of the elements constituting the tax base).

3) Sub-determination

Therefore, all of the arguments regarding the disposition of the gift tax on the Plaintiff NewD in 2006 cannot be accepted.

3. Claim against the director of the tax office of the Plaintiff NewB’s distribution, and the Plaintiff’s claim against the director of the tax office of the Plaintiff NewCC

(a) Details of the disposition;

On March 27, 2012, Plaintiff NewB and NewCC received 300 shares issued by each Plaintiff Company from the Deceased, and reported and paid KRW 103,871,790 on June 30, 2012 on the said shares. In evaluating the value of 300 shares of the Plaintiff Company on June 1, 2015, the head of the Defendant Distribution Tax Office and the head of Samsung District Tax Office determined and notified KRW 15,243,685 each gift tax on each of the instant clean room on the grounds of the depreciation cost in deductible expenses, inclusion of inventory assets, inclusion of welfare expenses in deductible expenses, denial of tax credit for research and human resources development expenses, etc.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 7 and 10 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Determination

As seen earlier, it is difficult to see the Cludio of this case as an accessory facility to a building, and its depreciation costs cannot be deemed to have been excessively appropriated. Thus, the disposition of gift tax on Plaintiff NewB and NewCC rendered on a different premise is unlawful.

However, if the amount of reasonable tax is calculated by adding the depreciation costs of the instant clean room to deductible expenses, such as the statement in the calculation of the amount of justifiable gift tax accrued in the year 2012, it shall be as KRW 13,868,850, respectively. Thus, it shall be revoked within the scope exceeding the amount of reasonable tax of KRW 13,868,85, out of the amount of gift tax accrued in the year 2012 for Plaintiff NewB and NewCC.

4. Claim against the plaintiff NewD and five other defendant's head of Dongjak Tax Office

(a) Details of the disposition;

The Defendant Dongjak District Tax Office determined and notified, on June 1, 2015, the Plaintiff NewD, NewBCC, New EE, NewF, and SongG (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiffs”) of the instant retirement allowance against the deceased’s company; ② the instant shares donated by Plaintiff NewD on January 31, 2006; ③ the respective 300 shares donated by Plaintiff NewB and NewCC on March 27, 2012; and ④ the amount of unfair under-reported tax (40/10) shall be applied to the inherited property; and ④ the amount of unfair under-reported tax (40/10) shall be applied to the inheritance tax.

[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry in Gap evidence 11 to 13 (including virtual number), before pleadings

The purpose of body

B. Determination

1) The portion included in the inherited property

As seen earlier, the possibility of the instant retirement allowance does not seem to have been mature and finalized, and there cannot be said that there were parts underassessment as to depreciation costs with respect to each of 300 shares donated by the Plaintiff NewB and NewCC. Therefore, under a different premise, the inheritance tax imposition disposition in 2012 against the Plaintiffs, which included the amount underassessment as to the instant retirement allowance and the Plaintiff’s shares 300 shares in the inherited property, was unlawful (On the other hand, it can be deemed that the instant shares donated by Plaintiff NewD received a donation from the Deceased, and thus, the portion included in the inherited property is legitimate).

2) Additional tax portion

According to Article 47-2(2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013), where a person fails to file a tax base return by the statutory due date of return due to an unlawful act, an amount equivalent to 40/100 of the amount of unpaid tax shall be the penalty tax. The purport of imposing penalty tax is to induce a person liable for tax payment to faithfully return the tax base on the grounds that it is impossible or considerably difficult to impose and collect taxes, in cases where all or part of the facts constituting the basis for calculating the tax base or the amount of national tax

As seen earlier, the Plaintiffs did not report the instant shares donated by the deceased as inherited property. This appears to have been due to the change II, the nominal owner of the instant shares, and the fact that the gift tax was reported and paid around 2006, depending on the external appearance of the shares donated by this KK. The head of Yongsan Tax Office did not impose any additional tax on the gift tax reverted to the Plaintiff, in 2006, pursuant to Article 47-2(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes (Evidence 3).

Considering the above circumstances, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiffs committed an unlawful act, such as making it difficult to find any taxation requirement or making any false fact difficult solely on the grounds that the gift tax was declared and paid by changing II and EK following the appearance of title trust. Therefore, the disposition imposing an amount equivalent to 40/100 of the amount of non-reported tax on the title trust of the instant shares, among the inheritance tax in 2012 against the Plaintiffs, is unlawful.

(iii)the calculation of a legitimate tax amount;

According to the separate sheet of calculation of the amount of legitimate tax of the inheritance tax, if the amount of tax is calculated by applying the general underreporting penalty tax for the title trust of the Plaintiff’s shares, except for the portions excessively assessed on the Plaintiff’s shares due to the appropriation of the retirement allowance and depreciation costs of the instant shares in the inherited property value, the inheritance tax in 2012 against the Plaintiffs shall be KRW 862,417,420 (including the additional tax for negligent tax returns 168,253,396, the additional tax for negligent tax payment 136,812,82, the aggregate of KRW 305,066,278). Accordingly, each disposition of imposition of KRW 2,734,082,231 against the Plaintiffs in 2012.

All parts exceeding 862,417,420 won shall be revoked.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted on the ground of its reasoning, and the claim against the director of the defendant SamsungB's office, the claim against the plaintiff Samsung director of the newCC against the defendant Samsung director of the defendant Samsung District Tax Office, and the claim against the defendant of the plaintiff ShinD, newBB, newCC, newE, newF, and SongG for the defendant's action director of the defendant's office within the scope of the above recognition. The remaining claims are dismissed on the ground of their reasons, and they are dismissed on the ground of their dismissal.