2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

117,00,000 won notice of change in income shall be revoked.

A. The plaintiff was established on June 20, 1979 and was established on June 20, 1979 and bbb in Jin-si, Jinsan-si.

A2 February 22, 2010, a non-listed corporation owned by aa on February 22, 2010

90,000 shares 240,000 shares of a corporation Aa (hereinafter referred to as "a")

11,00 won was purchased (hereinafter referred to as the "stock transaction of this case").

B. The commissioner of the Daejeon Regional Tax Office: (a) the change of shares in Aa from March 25, 2013 to April 23, 2013

A. As a result, 'aaa' has been conducted as an executive of the Plaintiff's affiliate.

Article 87(1)7 of the Enforcement Decree (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22073, Mar. 9, 2010; hereinafter the same) is a specially related person under Article 87(1)7, and the Plaintiff acquires shares of Aa from Aa in excess of 9,700 won generally traded price (market price) from a third party who is not a specially related party.

Considering that Article 52 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10423, Dec. 30, 2010; hereinafter the same) was "an act subject to rejection of unfair calculation," and notified the defendant thereof.

C. Accordingly, on August 1, 2013, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff in excess of the market price aa to the Plaintiff.

17,000,000 won = = (90,000 won x (11 x 9,700 won - 9,700 won) in the calculation of earnings and notify the changes in the amount of income that the income should be disposed of as other income to Aa (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case").

D. On October 16, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the instant disposition, but was dismissed on June 3, 2014.

Facts without any dispute, Gap's evidence 1 through 3, Eul's evidence 1 through 3 (including each number for which there is no number) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(i) does not constitute a person with a special interest;

Aa is the de facto controlling shareholder and the president of CC, a local company of Daejeon area, and not only the plaintiff but also the affiliated company of Fff, a parent company, has no interest in money or business transactions or any other business transactions or business interests, and their relatives are not the relatives of the major shareholders, and they are not the relationship between the two. However, the plaintiff and Aa are only the shareholders and executive officers (auditor) of Aa, and therefore, they do not constitute a related party under Article 52 of the former Corporate Tax Act and Article 87 of the former Enforcement Decree of Corporate Tax

(ii) does not constitute an elevated purchase;

A) Aa acquired shares of KRW 10,00 per share 10,000 per seven years prior to 7 years before considering the growth and inflation rate of BB broadcast, 11,000 won is the amount properly reflected in the market price. Furthermore, in order to secure more shares of KRW 10,00 according to the revision of the Broadcasting Act, purchase of shares from Aa with 4% shares was required. Accordingly, the shares transaction in this case is traded at normal market price. Accordingly, the amount of KRW 9,700, a transaction with minority shareholders with 1% or less, cannot be deemed as the market price of the shares transaction in this case.

B) Even if 11,00 won is not a reasonable market price, it is reasonable to view that the pertinent market price is 10,430 won as a reasonable market price in a transaction with a new type having a shareholding ratio of 1.5% in similar circumstances to the instant stock transaction. From this perspective, 11,000 won, which is the stock transaction value of the instant case, is merely 105.4% of the adequate market price, and thus, it cannot be deemed as an elevated purchase under Article 88(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) Sfff Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “fff”) is as of February 21, 2010 aa as of February 21, 2010

32% of the shares issued (6 million shares) are the largest shareholder in Aa, and is the largest shareholder in Aa by holding 35.75% of the shares issued by the plaintiff and holding 26.53% of the shares issued by Hh Transport Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "hh Transport").

2) Aa was on March 18, 2004 to March 18, 2010 as an auditor (non-standing) on the corporate register of aa.

3) According to Article 8(2) of the former Broadcasting Act (amended by Act No. 9786, Jul. 31, 2009), ownership of shares of terrestrial broadcasting business operators, including shares or equity shares owned by persons with a special relationship, can not be owned in excess of 30/100 of the total number of shares or equity shares of terrestrial broadcasting business operators engaged in general programming or specialized programming of news reports, but thereafter, ownership of shares of terrestrial broadcasting business operators may not be owned in excess of 40/100 (Act No. 9786, Jul. 31, 2009).

4) Accordingly, Fff, the largest investor in Aa, started to purchase additional shares through the Plaintiff, Hh transportation, and the ratio of the Plaintiff,fff, and Hh transportation to aa before and after February 22, 2010 is as follows:

On February 21, 2010, Feb. 22, 2010, 2010, name of a corporation, the holding ratio of the holding ratio.

5) The details of the stock transaction before and after the date of the instant stock transaction are as follows.

6) A on September 29, 200, aa purchased KRW 180,00 per share of KRW 10,000 per share on September 29, 2003, and purchased KRW 60,000 per share of KRW 7,000 per share on May 16, 2006 and held KRW 240,00 per share on February 22, 2010, the Plaintiff sold KRW 90,000 per share to f, KRW 30,00 per share to hh, respectively.

7) On January 29, 2010, Saa 60,000 shares of 120,000 shares of 120,000 shares held by Fff were sold to KRW 9,700 per share. The purchase price initially proposed by Ffff to Fa 9,500 won per share but at KRW 10,000 per share was 10,000 won per each share, and finally, transaction was conducted at KRW 9,700 per share.

8) On February 18, 2010, the mountain mountain field construction industry corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 's mountain mountain field construction industry') is fff.

Aa(60,000 shares) held by it was sold to KRW 9,700,00. The amount is determined on the basis of the amount of 10% increase (9,783 won) by 8,894 won per share of the shares owned by a general shareholder who is a certified public accountant of New Accounting Corporation assessed by gg countries under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act") as of June 30, 209.

9) On the other hand, on the same day as the date of the instant stock transaction, HH was purchased from fg to 3,000 shares from jk in each of 9,700 shares per share.

10) The seller of June 25, 2009 and the purchaser of the transaction, v and N have a special relationship between v and N.

11) On May 7, 2010, New Accounting Firm revaluateds the shares Aa under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. As of March 31, 2010, the appraised value per share of the shares owned by a general shareholder was 8,445 won, the appraised value per share of the largest shareholder was 9,289 won, and 15% increase by 10%.

Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, Gap's 6, 7, Eul's 2 through 8

Each entry, the purport of the whole pleading, including each number)

D. Determination

1) As to whether a person constitutes a specially related person

A) Article 87 (1) 7 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that if the relevant corporation belongs to a corporate diagnosis under the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter "Fair Trade Act"), one of the "persons having a special relationship as prescribed by the Presidential Decree" under Article 52 (1) of the former Corporate Tax Act, "other affiliates and executives of affiliated companies belonging to the relevant enterprise group." Article 2 subparagraph 2 and 3 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act and Article 3 subparagraph 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that where the same person and the same person own more than 30 percent of the total number of shares issued by another company, the same person and the same person own more than 30 percent of the total number of shares issued by the other company, they shall be the largest investor, and where two or more companies belong to the same corporate diagnosis, they shall each be the other party.

B) The facts of recognition as seen earlier and the following circumstances known under each of the above provisions:

① Since thefff is the largest investor holding at least 30% of the Plaintiff’s issued and outstanding shares, the Plaintiff is affiliated with the same business group under the Fair Trade Act, m broadcasting and the Plaintiff is affiliated with each other, and ② Aa was an officer of a Aa as an auditor on the corporate register as of February 22, 2010, which is the date of stock transaction in this case, pursuant to Article 87(1)7 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, since theff, Aa, and the Plaintiff is affiliated with the same business group under the Fair Trade Act. This part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

2) As to whether a purchase constitutes an elevated purchase

A) The rejection of wrongful calculation under Article 52 of the former Corporate Tax Act is not based on the normal economic person’s reasonable method in the transaction with a person with a special relationship.

The Tax Department by abusing the forms of transactions enumerated in the subparagraphs of Article 88 (1) of the Enforcement Decree.

If it is deemed that the taxation authority denies or reduces the entry, the taxation authority denies it and statutes.

income which has been objectively and reasonably shown in accordance with the manner prescribed by the

institution, which is applied only when, from the viewpoint of the economic person, is deemed to have neglected the economic rationality by making an unnatural or unreasonable calculation, and is economically economical.

Determination of the reasonableness or reasonableness of the transaction is simply a special case by removing only the transactional relationship.

in the form of transaction with a person other than the party concerned, the transaction does not take place immediately.

not deemed to fall under the category of transaction, but to take into account the overall circumstances of transaction in detail;

(1) If the annual transaction lacks economic rationality in the light of sound social norms or commercial practices;

The decision should be made depending on whether it is reasonable (Supreme Court Decision 2004Du204 Decided May 11, 2006).

793 see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 7993

Meanwhile, in determining the market price under Article 52(2) of the former Corporate Tax Act, in cases of unlisted stocks with low market value, the transaction value shall be deemed the market price and the stock value shall not be assessed based on the supplementary evaluation methods stipulated in the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. In this case, the market price means the objective exchange price formed by the general and ordinary transaction, and in order to recognize such transaction example as the market price, the pertinent transaction is made in a general and normal manner, and the objective exchange value at the time of the transaction shall be recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du24863, Nov. 13, 2014).

B) In light of the above legal principles, as to whether it is appropriate for the Defendant to deny the wrongful calculation by deeming the market price of 9,700 won per share of fff and s. and s. and d. to be the market price, the Defendant purchased KRW 5,700 per share of 5,000 shares from s.h. and s. and d. on the same day of the stock transaction in this case. The Defendant purchased KRW 120,000 per share of 1,70 shares from s.h. and 124 and 4 days before the stock transaction in this case. The purchase of KRW 120,000 per share from s.h. and s. s.h. and s. d. to be the market price at the time of 1,700 shares from s.h. and s. s. s. 1,700 shares from s. 24 and 4 days after the stock transaction in this case.

In regard to this, the Plaintiff asserts that 11,000 won per share, which is the transaction price of a AAA shares purchased from the Plaintiff from a Aa, constitutes the market price by a third party negotiation, and at least 10,430 won, which is the transaction price of AA and the Plaintiff, constitutes the market price, considering the acquisition price of Aa and the necessity for purchasing shares following the revision of the Broadcasting Act.

However, by taking into account the following circumstances, known by the fact of recognition:

On the other hand, 11,00 won per share of shares aa between the Plaintiff and Aa, or 10,430 won per share of the transaction value between the Plaintiff and AA, which reflects the objective exchange value at the time, and it is difficult to view it as the market price. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

① 1,000 won per transaction price between the Plaintiff and Aa is excessive compared to 9,700 won per transaction price with Sami, etc.

② The average acquisition value per share of aa is 90,250 won (=220,000 won/240,000 won/), and 420,000 won (=(11,00 won - 9,250 won) x 240,000 won) by selling 240,000 shares of Aa to the Plaintiff,fff, and H transportation.

③ The final transaction price was set at the end of the negotiations, citing the amount of KRW 9,500 to KRW 9,700 per share when afff purchases shares in a Aaa from forest shot and mountain shot and mountain shot and mountain shot. However, the Plaintiff’s transaction with Aa does not seem to have presented the said amount and proceeded with the negotiations.

④ The value per share of aaa stocks calculated by the supplementary assessment method under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is the amount calculated by adding 8,894 won as of June 30, 2009, and 8,445 won as of March 31, 2010, and the transaction value between the Plaintiff and F, etc. is the amount calculated by reflecting the management value of the largest shareholder in accordance with the above supplementary assessment method.

⑤ The Plaintiff, fff, and Hh transportation had already owned 3.5% of the shares issued by aaa prior to the instant share transaction, and even through high-priced purchase, it does not seem that they had been faced with an imminent situation as much as to defend the management right. Thus, there seems to be no reason for the Plaintiff to purchase 13.4% or hh transportation from LL to the point of risking damages.

④ On June 25, 2009, AA purchased shares of KRW 10,00 per share from D, a person with a special relationship. On December 3, 2009, the Plaintiff appears to have purchased KRW 10,430 per share in consideration of the trading price of KRW 10,430,00, when purchasing shares of KRW 10,00 per share of KRW Aaa 90,00. However, on June 30, 2009 according to the supplementary assessment method of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the price per share of KRW 8,894, and there is a special relationship with H and W, it is difficult to view that the same transaction between H and W is the result of a price negotiation that is conducted on an equal and fair basis with the position of a trading party, and it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff reflects an objective exchange price of KRW 10,430,00 per share at the time of exchange.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.