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

Cheong-gu Office

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The decision of the head of the ○○ Tax Office rendered on March 4, 2014 to the Plaintiff AA on March 4, 2011

The imposition of KRW 00 million on the transfer income tax reverted to Defendant ○○ Tax Office on October 16, 2014

The imposition of KRW 00,000,000,000,000,000 on BB, shall be revoked.

The court's explanation of this part is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance.

Therefore, it is accepted by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

(a) Relevant statutes;

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

(b) Whether payment in kind of gift tax constitutes a transfer for consideration of an asset on which transfer income tax may be imposed;

Whether or not

1) Article 4(1) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10900, Jul. 25, 2011; hereinafter the same) classify resident’s income into global income, retirement income, and capital gains, and classify resident’s income as global income, retirement income, and capital

(3) Article 88(1) of the former Income Tax Act provides that "income generated from the transfer of assets" shall be deemed as "income generated from the transfer of assets." Article 88(1) of the former Income Tax Act provides that "transfer of assets is actually transferred for consideration without relation to the registration or enrollment of the assets, and that sale, exchange, and investment in kind in a corporation is deemed as the example of the transfer of assets. It does not mean that only where assets are transferred for the reason of sale, exchange, or investment in kind in a corporation, such transfer shall not be deemed as "transfer in capital gains." Thus, even if assets are actually transferred for consideration due to reasons other than sale, exchange, or investment in kind in a corporation, if they are actually transferred for consideration, it shall be deemed that the transfer, which is the cause of taxation of capital gains tax, has been made (see Supreme Court Decision 20

2) In light of the aforementioned statutory provisions and relevant legal principles, as to whether gift tax paid in kind constitutes transfer of assets for consideration, ① under Article 73(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11130, Dec. 31, 201; hereinafter the same shall apply) is paid in kind with real estate or securities instead of paying gift tax in cash, and accordingly, a taxpayer is exempted from gift tax, so it can be deemed that such act constitutes transfer of assets with the character of payment in kind in public law (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du14695, Sept. 10, 200). ② Payment in kind is made at the request of a party, so there is no reason to treat capital gains tax differently from transfer of general real estate realized according to the party’s judgment; ③ Payment in kind cannot be deemed as having violated the purpose of the inheritance tax and gift tax system, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there is no possibility that transfer income tax should be imposed in consideration of the inheritance tax and gift tax paid in kind (see Article 25).

C. Whether the application of the instant provision is unlawful

1) In the calculation of gains on transfer of land or buildings and other assets prescribed by Presidential Decree donated by a resident by his/her spouse or lineal ascendants or descendants within five years retroactively from the date of transfer, the acquisition value is the value at the time of the acquisition by such spouse, lineal ascendants or descendants.

(1) The Act provides that the Corporation shall

2) Under the principle of no taxation without law, the elements of taxation, non-taxation, or tax reduction or exemption shall be avoided, and the interpretation of tax laws and regulations shall be based on the text of the law, barring any special circumstance, and shall not be extensively interpreted or analogically interpreted without reasonable grounds (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du5521, Jul. 26, 2002). Although the instant provision is applicable to land or a building, the spouse shall

B. Cases of avoiding capital gains tax burden by transferring after donation to a lineal ascendant or descendant

In order to prevent acquisition price, the donor's acquisition price shall be deemed as the acquisition price, and capital gains tax shall be unfairly held.

Although the provision in this case appears to be a provision to prevent avoidance, so long as the provision in this case specifically provides for the requirements in the text of the law in order to realize the legislative intent above, the donee shall be treated as a donee.

applicable to the requirements prescribed in the provisions of this case, to which the acquisition value shall be deemed the acquisition value of the donor

(1) The acquisition value of the donor shall be determined only on the basis of whether or not, and shall be the acquisition value of the donor.

whether or not the actual tax burden has been reduced as a requirement to set the requirements, or the transfer income tax has been unjustly paid;

Inasmuch as whether there is an intention to avoid is not prescribed, the tax burden has been reduced or the tax burden has been reduced.

The application of the provision of this case is excluded because the transfer income tax was not unjustly avoided.

shall not be subject to an appeal.

3) In light of the aforementioned relevant statutes and legal principles, health class, payment in kind constitutes a transfer of assets for consideration, as seen earlier, and the Plaintiffs received the instant key real estate from Kim Down, the Plaintiffs, within five years retroactively from September 5, 201, which paid in kind the instant key real estate, which is the land, and thereby satisfying all the applicable requirements prescribed in the instant provision. As such, the instant disposition that held the acquisition value as the acquisition value in calculating gains on transfer from the payment in kind of the Plaintiffs’ gift tax, is lawful. The Plaintiffs’ assertion is groundless without need to further determine.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims shall be dismissed in its entirety due to the lack of the reasons, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in its conclusion, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed in its entirety due to the lack of reasons.