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

A. BB enterprise (hereinafter “B enterprise”) was established on December 10, 1993 and its principal business purpose is the aesthetic and waterproof construction business, and the total number of its issued stocks was 00,000 shares (0 won per share) at the time of its establishment, but was changed to 00,000 shares on April 20, 2005 through capital increase for new shares.

B. The statement of the change of stocks, etc. submitted by BB at the time of filing a corporate tax return at the time of the business year 2010 (hereinafter “the statement of the change of stocks, etc.”) is written as follows: (a) the total amount of BB’s stocks during the pertinent business year is 00,000 shares (hereinafter “instant shares”) transferred from GFF, Kim GG, Kim J, Kim J, Kim J, KimJ, KimK, LL, and HanM (hereinafter “new holders of the instant shares”) to the Plaintiff during the pertinent business year (hereinafter “instant shares”) (hereinafter “the instant shares”).

C. From May 6, 2013 to June 19, 2013, the head of Samsung Tax Office confirmed whether the new holders paid the transfer price to the previous holders with respect to the transfer of the shares listed in the statement of stock fluctuation (hereinafter “tax investigation of this case”). The reasons for the change of shareholders listed in the above statement are not transfer but transfer. The reasons for the change of shareholders are explained as follows: ① I want to allocate the shares to the employees in the form of shares for the development of the company due to boosting the morale of employees; ② I confirmed that the new holders were 00,000 shares and affixed the certificates of 10,000 shares to the employees of this case (No. 11-1); ② I confirmed that the certificates of 10,000 shares issued by 20,000 shares issued by 20,000 shares issued by 30,000 shares issued by 20,000 shares issued by 30,000 shares issued by 20,000 shares issued by 14.

D. On December 14, 2010, the head of Samsung Tax Office deemed that new holders, including the Plaintiff, donated each of the above shares from the previous holders, and notified each of the taxation data to the relevant head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the domicile of the new holders [mark] stated in the column of the head of the tax office (hereinafter “head of the competent tax office”).

E. The chief of the competent tax office including the Defendant calculated the value of donated property by evaluating the market price of 00,000 won at the time of December 14, 2010 based on the supplementary assessment method prescribed by the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, based on the shares of BB enterprises, and then imposed a gift tax on the new holders (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the imposition of the first gift tax") as stated in the notice date and the tax column, and among them, the imposition of the gift tax of 00,000,000 won (including the additional tax return of 0,000,000,0000,000 won, and the penalty tax of 0,000,000 won, which was imposed on the Plaintiff on September 11, 2013).

F. The new holders, including the Plaintiff, filed a request with the Tax Tribunal for a trial on the grounds of their dissatisfactions, and the “Korea-E-owned shares of KRW 00,000,000,000 from DaD in 2006, respectively, purchased each of the E-owned shares of KRW 00,000,000 from E and owned it in fact without completing the transfer of ownership from DoD.” The new holders, including the Plaintiff, argued that the former holders submitted a detailed statement of changes in stocks, etc. as if the shares of this case were transferred to the new holders from the previous holders.

G. On April 28, 2014, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision that “The tax base and tax amount should be corrected according to the result of re-examination as to whether the MF acquired the stocks of this case with compensation from ED, etc., and the remaining claims are dismissed.”

H. Accordingly, the head of Samsung Tax Office re-examineed the shares from June 9, 2014 to July 4, 2014, and deemed that the transfer of 0,000 shares out of the shares of this case to Korea EE does not constitute a transfer at a low price among the related parties, but rather constitutes a transfer at a low price among the shares of this case. The remainder of 00,000 shares (0,000 shares - 0,000 shares) out of the shares of this case was entirely premised on the imposition of gift tax, and notified the head of the competent tax office of the assessment data by deeming that the previous holders were donated to the new holders, as in the initial imposition of gift tax

I. On July 17, 2014, the chief of the competent district tax office notified the new holders of the results of re-audit that the initial imposition of gift tax (excluding the part on which the gift tax was based on the above 0,000 main gift) was justifiable (the head of the competent tax office changed the part on which the above 0,000 main gift was disposed of from the initial imposition of gift tax, into the grounds for disposal, and then reduced or corrected the transfer at a low price, and the KoreaM did not object to the said reduction or correction

(j) The new holders including the Plaintiff filed a request for an inquiry with the Tax Tribunal on December 19, 2014, respectively, around the date of notification of the results of the reexamination.

(k) On September 24, 2014, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit, and the remainder of the new holders of the case also filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the imposition of gift tax (the pertinent court and case number are the same as the corresponding column) and is pending in the lawsuit (the pertinent court and case number are the same as the corresponding column).

2. The assertion and judgment

Whether the Plaintiff received the instant shares donated from AD

【Plaintiff’s Claim】

In around 2006, HanM purchased the instant shares, etc. from the previous holders, such as purchase of the shares of BB enterprise from E in KRW 000,000,000, and held the instant shares in the name of the previous holders without completing the transfer of ownership after payment of the purchase price. At the time of reporting the corporate tax for 2010, HanM entered the instant shares as if the instant shares were transferred to the new holders from the previous holders during the instant business year without obtaining the consent of the new holders, including the Plaintiff at the time of reporting the transfer of ownership. At the time of conducting the instant tax investigation, the instant shares were falsely prepared and submitted as if the previous holders and the new holders were to have donated on December 14, 2010. In other words, the actual owners of the instant shares are not Korea, but Korea, and the Plaintiff did not have made the instant shares donated from DoD.

【Defendant’s Claim】

On December 14, 2010, it is clear that the Plaintiff received the gift of the instant shares from ED.

3. Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

4. The judgment of this Court

A. Generally, since the tax authority bears the burden of proving the facts of taxation requirements in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a tax imposition disposition, the tax authority should directly prove the facts of taxation requirements in the specific litigation process or clarify the presumed facts of taxation requirements in light of the empirical rule (see Supreme Court Decision 97Nu13894, Jul. 10, 1998).

B. We examine whether the Plaintiff received the instant shares from DoD on December 14, 2010 in light of the aforementioned legal principles.

C. The facts that the instant shares were indicated in the statement on the change of shares of this case that the instant shares were transferred from D to the Plaintiff during the 2010 business year are as seen earlier, and there is no dispute between the Plaintiff and the parties that the Plaintiff did not pay for the instant shares. Furthermore, there is no dispute between the parties that the name of D is affixed on the right side of the printed portion of D's name among the D certificates, and thus, the act of affixing the seal is presumed to be based on D's intent. Furthermore, even based on the testimony of D (Evidence No. 38) is presumed to have been the authenticity of the entire certificates under Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act, it is presumed that D's testimony (Evidence No. 38) was presumed to have been completed, even if D's testimony (Evidence No. 38) requests the delivery of Doz's seal imprint for the reason that it is necessary for Doz's shares, and the above verification certificate was directly submitted to Do public officials at the time of the instant tax investigation. In light of these circumstances, the Plaintiff's testimony or the 4 of Do's testimony cannot be reversed.

D. However, in light of the following circumstances: (a) evidence Nos. 3, 4, 13-14, evidence Nos. 15-2, 3, 16, 20, 33, 34, and evidence Nos. 35-1 through 10, each evidence Nos. 3, 3, 3, 16, 20, 33, 34, and 35-1 through 35-10, witness NN, and KoreaM’s testimony, and witness evidence Nos. 1 through 6, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was given a gift of the instant shares on December 14, 2010, and there is no other evidence to prove this otherwise.

① All new holders, including the Plaintiff, are arguing that the instant shares were not donated from the existing holders, and are dissatisfied with the imposition of gift tax. However, considering the value of the instant shares and the amount imposed on the gift tax, if the new holders were to have actually received the instant shares from D, there seems to be no reason to deny the donation.

② There exist sufficient circumstances to suspect whether the new holders of the instant shares (except for the Plaintiff) are the actual holders of the instant shares. In other words, the said new holders were unaware of the details of the statement of the instant shares change before the instant tax investigation was conducted. Moreover, there was no circumstance to deem that the said new holders exercised voting rights or received dividends from the Zbank on September 30, 2010. In addition, Korea Development Bank directly paid the amount of gift tax imposed on the new holders of the instant shares, excluding themselves. However, as alleged by the Defendant, the previous holders of the instant shares donated the instant shares to the new holders of the instant shares, and Korea Development Bank did not have any relation to the instant shares (except for KRW 0,000, which is indicated as the transfer from DoD), there is sufficient reason to impose gift tax on the new holders of the instant shares excluding DoD, as its representative director and the actual owners of the instant shares, and there is sufficient reason to deem that Korea Development Bank was unfairly responsible for paying gift tax to the new holders of the instant shares.

③ According to the Defendant’s disposition, DoD’s status as the largest shareholder of BB would be lost by transferring BB’s shares to the KimG on December 14, 2010 and to the Plaintiff and KimJ each KRW 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to the Plaintiff and KimJ, and to the Plaintiff and KimJ on December 14, 2010. However, DoD does not have any relationship with itself, and it is difficult to find any special motive or reason to donate the shares to new employees of the company, who are not working as the representative director, even if it was employed as the former representative director, and it is no longer possible to find out any special motive or reason to donate the shares of this case (and, as seen thereafter, Kim GG did not have any employees of BB at the time of December 14, 2010).

④ There are circumstances in conformity with the Plaintiff’s assertion that DaD voluntarily continued to operate BB, and NA transferred the instant shares to NA as it was reasonable for NA to start its own business. In other words, DoD was 66 years old as of the date of birth on the resident registration at 2006, and the sales and net income of BB were KRW 00 million in 2004,000 and KRW 0 million in 20000,000 in 205, respectively. At the time of 2006, NA was 100,000,000 won in 200,000 won in 30,000,000 won in 20,000 won in 30,000 capital in 20,000 capital in 20,000 capital in 20,000 capital in 20,000 capital in 20.

⑤ 이DD 확인서에 과세의 근거자료로서 높은 신빙성을 부여하기 어렵다. 즉, ㉠ 삼성세무서의 재조사 결과에 의하면, 한EE 명의 주식 중 6,211주는 한MM에게 증여 된 것이 아니라 양도되었다는 것이고, 용인세무서도 이러한 전제에서 후속 처분을 하였는바, 한상구 확인서의 내용은 위 6,211주조차 한MM에게 증여하였다는 것으로서 과세관청의 조치와도 배치되는 것이어서 그 신빙성은 크게 훼손되었다고 할 것인데, 이DD 확인서는 위와 같은 시기에 동일한 양식으로 작성되어 동일한 상대방에게 같은 경위로 제출되었다. ㉡ 또한 이DD 확인서에는 BB기업의 직원의 사기 양양을 위하여 주식을 증여한다고 기재되어 있고, 피고의 처분사유에 따르면 이 사건 주식 이전은2010. 12. 14. 이루어졌다는 것인데, 신규 명의인 중 김GG는 2010. 12. 14. 당시 BB기업의 직원이 아니었다(김GG의 입사일은 2011. 3. 2.이다). ㉢ 그리고 2010. 12. 14. 당시 BB기업에 근무하고 있었던 직원은 신규 명의인(김GG 제외) 이외에도 상당수가 있었던 것으로 보이는바, 직원들 사기 진작을 위하여 회사 주식을 증여하면서 일부 직원만을 대상으로 하는 경우는 매우 드물다. ㉣ 그리고 이DD이 직원들에게 주식을 증여하면서 위와 같은 확인서를 작성하였다는 것 자체가 그리 자연스럽지 않다. ㉤ 나아가 이DD 확인서의 문언에 따르더라도 근로복지기본법 제2조 제4호에 따라 우리사주조합을 결성하여 그 우리사주조합으로 하여금 BB기업 주식을 취득하도록 하는 것일 뿐 직원 명의로 직접 BB기업 주식을 취득하도록 하려는 것이 아니다.

On September 30, 2010, Korea-MM directly paid the amount of gift tax imposed on a new title holder except himself/herself with the amount of money borrowed from a corporate bank. However, as alleged by the Defendant, Korea-MM (excluding 0,000 shares, which were entered as transfer from DoD to DoD) was not related to the instant shares (excluding 0,00 shares, which were entered as transfer from DoD). There is no special reason for Korea-M to pay the gift tax imposed on the new title holder except himself/herself with its own funds. Korea-M is sufficient to deem that it is the actual owner of the instant shares purchased from DoD and the representative director of B-B-based company, who is the employee of the new title holder.

6. According to the fact that KM 1 and 3G 2 were issued in the name of the above 3G 20,000 won for the above 3G 20,000 won for the above 3G 4G 20,000 won for the above 3G 4G 20,000 won for the above 4G 2G 3G 20,000,000 won for the above 3G 4G 20,000,000 won for the above 4G 3G 3G 20,000,000 won for the above 4G 3G 20,000,000 won for the 3G 20,000,000 won for the above OG 1,000,000 won for the 3G 3G 20,000,000 won for the above OG 3G 1,000.

E. Therefore, the instant disposition ought to be deemed an illegal disposition that fails to satisfy the taxation requirements.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition.