2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The reasoning for this Court’s reasoning is as follows: (a) the part concerning the plaintiffs’ assertion in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which is the part concerning the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) it is identical to the part concerning the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the following 2.3 is added; and (c) thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of

2. The addition;

As seen below, the Supreme Court en banc Decision 2006Du19693 Decided March 19, 2009 and the amended provisions of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act after the said decision are more clear.

① Article 41(1) of the former Inheritance and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9916, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter “former Inheritance and Gift Tax Act”) provides that “Where a person who has a special relationship with a stockholder or investor of a corporation that has losses or is under suspension or closure (hereinafter in this Article “specific corporation”) obtains profits from the stockholder or investor of the specific corporation through transactions falling under any of the following subparagraphs, the amount equivalent to such profits shall be deemed to be the value of donated property to the stockholder or investor of the specific corporation concerned.” Article 31(6) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18177, Dec. 30, 2003; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree”) provides that “The profits calculated by multiplying the value of shares or investment shares of the specific corporation pursuant to Article 41(1) of the former Enforcement Decree by the number of shares or investment shares pursuant to Article 15(1)1 of the Act shall be 60(1) of the amended Enforcement Decree of the same Act:

② However, Supreme Court en banc Decision 2006Du19693 Decided March 19, 2009 ruled that Article 41(1) and (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 31(6) provides that “Where a corporation receives a donation and actually obtains profits, Article 41(1) and (2) of the former Inheritance and Gift Tax Act shall only delegate the calculation of such profits to the Presidential Decree, if the corporation actually obtains profits, then Article 31(6) of the amended Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act provides that “Where the value of stocks is not increased due to a donation to a corporation, it shall be deemed that the shareholder gains profits even if the value of stocks is not increased due to the donation to the corporation, it shall be deemed null and void as exceeding the scope of delegation.

③ Article 41(1) of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9916, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter “Revised Inheritance and Gift Tax Act”) (amended by Act No. 9916) was amended to read “where a person who has a special relationship with a shareholder or investor of a corporation that has a loss or has suspended or discontinued business (hereafter referred to as “specific corporation” in this Article) makes any of the following transactions with such specific corporation, and the shareholder or investor of such specific corporation obtains profits prescribed by Presidential Decree, the amount equivalent to such profits shall be deemed the value of property donated to the shareholder or investor of such specific corporation:

④ In full view of the purport of the Supreme Court’s decision and the language and text of Article 41(1) of the amended Inheritance and Gift Tax Act, it is reasonable to deem that the amended Article 41(1) of the amended Inheritance and Gift Tax Act is the purport of delegation to the Presidential Decree as to whether to regard the shareholder’s profit as well as the calculation of the shareholder’s profit. Ultimately, Article 31(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the amended Inheritance and Gift Tax Act, which, upon the formation of a new delegation provision under the parent law, has become null and void.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed, and the judgment of the court of first instance with the same conclusion is just, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Jan Jin-hun (Presiding Judge)