2. On May 7, 2014, the head of the tax office’s imposition of KRW 4,199,710 (including additional taxes; hereinafter the same shall apply), corporate tax of KRW 47,506,290 in 201, and corporate tax of KRW 44,49,770 in 201 shall be revoked.

3. Defendant 00’s appeal is dismissed.

4. The total cost of the lawsuit between the plaintiff 00 education corporation and the defendant 000 director shall be borne by the director of the tax office, and the cost of the appeal between the defendant 00 director and the plaintiff 000 shall be borne by the director of the tax office.

The provisions of paragraphs (1) and (2).

2. The purport of the claim by Plaintiff 000

The imposition of tax shall be revoked.

3. Purport of appeal by the director of the tax office

In the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff Lee Jae-ju shall be revoked.

(c)

000 No. 604 (hereinafter referred to as "the case") located on the same building as the real estate of this case

A reasonable rent for the real estate of this case shall be calculated on the basis of the rent per unit area of 604.

that the payment of rent in excess is subject to the avoidance of wrongful calculation.

In that sense, it is inappropriate to consider the No. 604 as the comparison of the instant real estate.

The imposition of each corporate tax of this case is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The reasons for this part of the judgment of the court of first instance are the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (3 pages 20, Form No. 1

b) Accordingly, in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, the same shall be cited.

C. Determination

1) The rejection of wrongful calculation under Article 52 of the Corporate Tax Act is based on a person with a special relationship.

The Enforcement Decree of the former Corporate Tax Act without using a reasonable method of economy in the transaction.

Each subparagraph of Article 88(1) of the Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26981, Feb. 12, 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply)

by abusing the various forms of transactions listed in the subparagraph, and unreasonably avoiding tax burden; or

In case of reduction, the taxation authority denies it and pursuant to the methods as provided in the Acts and subordinate statutes;

An institution which is deemed to have a governmental and reasonable income, and which is an economic person’s position;

In light of the above, the economic rationality was neglected due to the lusent and unreasonable calculation of a natural lusent act.

apply only when it is recognized that there is an economic rationality. Determination of whether there is an economic rationality shall be made

Considering the various circumstances of the transaction, the sound social norms are as to whether the transaction is made.

(b) Determination according to whether or not the economic rationality is abnormal in the light of the commercial practice

transaction price between the non-specially related persons, special circumstances at the time of transaction, etc. shall also be considered.

Court Decision 2008Du15541 decided Oct. 28, 2010

Meanwhile, Article 88(1)7 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act is one of the grounds for denial of wrongful calculation.

at an interest rate, tariff, or rental rate higher than the market price; or

Article 89(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that "the market price which serves as the basis for whether a corporation is a case where a corporation paid a price higher than the market price to a person with a special relationship and received money or other assets or services to a person with a special relationship shall be the price continuously traded with many and unspecified persons other than a person with a special relationship or the price generally transacted between third parties who are not a person with a special relationship. In addition, in the case of denial of wrongful calculation, the tax authority proves that the taxpayer's act constitutes wrongful calculation, and asserts that the taxpayer's act constitutes wrongful calculation, which is the basis for the application of the denial of wrongful calculation,

The burden of proof is against the tax authority claiming the denial of wrongful calculation (Supreme Court Decision 2005 delivered on May 12, 2005).

203Du15287, supra.

2) In light of the above legal principles, the evidence mentioned above as well as Gap's 6, 12 through 22, 29, and

30 Each statement of evidence (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and pleading in the testimony of a witness of this court 000

In full view of the following circumstances revealed in addition to the purport of the whole, the evidence submitted by the Defendant

It is insufficient to view that the rent under the instant 604 is the basis for calculating the appropriate rent for the instant real estate, and there is no evidence to support that the Plaintiff’s education paid a rent higher than the market price to the specially related 000 persons. Accordingly, on a different premise, there is no evidence to support that the Plaintiff’s education paid a rent

The imposition of each corporate tax is illegal.

① The instant real estate consists of the 7th floor of the instant building and 601, 602, and 603.

The 7th floor is using the whole by remodeling approximately 39 square meters of common areas exclusively (actually).

In contrast to the entry in the registry, the area for exclusive use by human beings has been set up in a single space without being divided by units, 601, 602, and 603. On the other hand, among the 4 units of the 6th floor of the instant building, the area for exclusive use by human beings (105.21mm2) among the 4 units of the 6th floor of the instant building, the area for exclusive use by human beings is the largest narrow and the area for exclusive use by human beings is located in North, the opposite side of the 4th line of the instant building, and the terms and conditions

② In addition, education for plaintiffs 00 on the 7th floor and most of the 6th floor of the instant building is used.

Therefore, it is not easy to separately lease only 604 cases corresponding to the remainder.

in fact the presumption that he had been presumed to have been in accordance with the rule of experience, and that No. 604 of this case was leased to a private teaching institute.

in light of the fact that the person had been in an official condition for a considerable period of time before such period, No. 604

The possibility that the rent would be set below the surrounding market price can not be ruled out.

③ On the other hand, Plaintiff 00 and Plaintiff 000 were divorced, and the representative director was the Plaintiff.

Plaintiff 00 Education Department around December 10, 2012, around December 10, 2012, when special relationship between 00 and 000 has been terminated.

00 re-contract for the instant real estate was concluded, and the content thereof was leased.

The difference between the total amount of deposit KRW 200 million, monthly rent of KRW 14 million (Evidence A 16), and rent of each taxable year (2010-2012) prior to the dissolution of the special relationship, is not significant compared to the tax imposition of the corporate tax of this case.

(4) In addition, around December 2015, 000: 601, 602, 603, excluding seven floors among the instant real estate.

Sale to Hoho 00, the status of the lessor was succeeded from 000 to 000, and the 000 new purchase from 000 was made on March 31, 2016 between Plaintiff 00 and Plaintiff 00.

The lease contract was entered into, but the same conditions as the previous one was maintained, but the education for plaintiffs 00 was unique

was paid to a third party without any relationship at the same amount as the rent paid to 000.

(c)

3. Whether the imposition of gift tax of this case is legitimate

A. Plaintiff 00’s assertion

The shares of this case were held in title in 000 to 000 to his/her father, and the shares of this case were held in title by divorce.

As a means of division, Plaintiff 00 transferred to Plaintiff 000. Therefore, Plaintiff 000 is a son.

From the beginning, the imposition of gift tax of this case on the premise that the shares of this case were donated was illegal.

B. Determination

According to the statement in Eul evidence Nos. 5, 000 without compensation for the shares of this case to plaintiff 000

It is recognized that the transfer of shares is made in the form of a stock free transfer contract.

and evidence mentioned above, as well as evidence mentioned in Gap's 3, 4, 8 to 10, and Eul's 3 to 5, this court

The following circumstances that may be known to the witness’s testimony of 000 witnesses by adding to the overall purport of the pleadings:

In full view of B’s evidence No. 5 (stock free transfer and takeover contract) is a divorce between 000 and 000

have been prepared to perform the duty of share transfer under the agreement on division of property.

Since it is reasonable to see that the above evidence alone is insufficient to recognize the fact of donation by 000, and

There is no evidence to prove otherwise that 000 shares of this case are issued by the Plaintiff 000.

The imposition of gift tax of this case under the premise that it was illegal.

(1) Cash on August 31, 2009 and February 14, 2011 to 000 daughters over twice in total. < Amended by Act No. 10857, Feb. 14, 2011>

200,000,000 won, as donated by 000,000,000

about 2011 the acquisition of the shares of this case, and 000 witnesses of this court are minors from certified tax accountants.

A prior donation to a child shall hear advice that the inheritance tax, etc. is extinct and 000 shares shall be issued to his/her her son.

In light of the fact that a statement was made to the effect that “the cash was donated as a means to donate B”, 000 is intended to acquire the shares of this case by donating the purchase price equivalent to the shares to 000.

Since it is reasonable to see that the pertinent shares had a genuine intent, 000 shares to 000

It is not a nominal trust, but a 000-owned shares acquired with the money donated by 000.

② around September 2012, 200: (a) agreed to divorce with Plaintiff 000; and (b) under the pretext of division of property.

Around November 2012, all of the shares of the Plaintiff’s Edial Education was agreed at KRW 1 billion in cash, but thereafter on or around November 2012

This Court's decision concerning this part is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, this Court's decision is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

○ 2, 14 pages 14 adds “the building of this case” (hereinafter referred to as “the building of this case”). ○ 2, 17 pages 17 adds “the defendant” to “the director of the tax office of 000”.

The defendant's 00 chief of the tax office is "the defendant's 00 chief of the tax office".

2. Whether the imposition of each of the corporate tax in this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff 00's assertion of education

“00 out of the shares of Plaintiff 00, 000, 000

00 shares are transferred to the plaintiff 000 immediately after the court's decision to divorce; and

It is stated that the expenses shall be paid by Kim Jong-tae. Accordingly, 000 shall have the obligation to acquire the shares of this case from his 000, and transfer them to the plaintiff 000.

was made.

③ Meanwhile, around December 2012, 000, the seal of 0000 his/her own will be affixed to the seal and then 000 name.

Preparation of a share free transfer and takeover contract (Evidence 5), and '00 and the plaintiff in the above contract.

000 agree to move the instant shares of 000, a child, to Plaintiff 000.

in light of the above circumstances, the statement is written. 000 Man 000,000

From the acquisition of the shares of this case to the plaintiff 000, the shares of this case must be transferred again

in principle, however, the shares of this case from 000 to 000 only in its form

I seem to take the same way as this direct transfer. Accordingly, I seem to have taken the above stock free transfer and takeover.

(5) If a property division agreement with Plaintiff 00 is made to the extent that the statement (Evidence (Evidence (No. (5)) has been made by

was written as a means to perform the obligation of food transfer, and 000 is only made up to the plaintiff 000.

It shall not be deemed that the shares of this case were made to be donated.

④ Moreover, around November 6, 2012, Plaintiff 00 and 000 are the way of division of property following divorce.

Around December 11, 2012, the share of this case owned by 000 was transferred to Plaintiff 000, and was not economically independent, because it was agreed to transfer shares.

Maternal’s donation of shares to her mother, even though it is very exceptional to social norms; 000

A. The special circumstances under which the shares of this case were donated to the Plaintiff 000 do not appear in the record.

Taking account of the fact that 000 donated the instant shares to Plaintiff 000

It is not natural in light of the empirical rule.

4. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiffs' claims shall be accepted in its entirety with due grounds, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be delivered.

Among them, the part on Plaintiff 00 education is unfair on the basis of its conclusion, and thus, it is revoked and original.

(1) The portion of the judgment of the court of first instance against Plaintiff 00 in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be

Therefore, the appeal by the chief of the tax office is dismissed.