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

A. On October 15, 2007, the Plaintiff purchased 4,000 shares of non-listed shares issued at XX (hereinafter referred to as “contribut shares”) from Non-Party 1, who is a shareholder of the XX building business, to KRW 000 per share (hereinafter referred to as “contribut shares”).

B. The director of the Central and Medium Regional Tax Office, while conducting an investigation of changes in shares for the XX case, ordered 00 won (00 won per share) by the supplementary evaluation method under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (hereinafter “Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”), and notified the Defendant of the taxation data that “the Plaintiff shall levy gift tax by applying Article 35 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, as the Plaintiff acquired the outstanding shares from Yellow A to a person with a special relationship at a lower price than the market price.”

C. On October 15, 2007, the Defendant decided and notified the Plaintiff on June 1, 201 KRW 000 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] The purport of the whole pleadings in the evidence No. 1. 6 of Feb. 5, 190

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) In the application of Article 35 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the scope of a person with a special relationship is delegated to the provisions of Articles 26(4) and 19(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and each of the above provisions does not include a "executive for whom five years have not passed since his/her retirement". Thus, the first defendant's disposition of this case on a different premise is unlawful (a dispute1).

2) In addition, sulfurA was a director on the corporate register until April 2004. However, this is not an officer who actually participates in the management of the XX case established as a member of the claim group, but is not a member who actually participates in the management of the business under the pretext of the business under the pretext of the measure taken to recover the claims as a member of the claim group. YellowA cannot be deemed a substantial officer since it did not have worked in the XX case or received the payment for the benefits, etc. Therefore, it does not constitute an employee of the corporation under Article 19(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (Dispute 2).

3) The Plaintiff had previously acquired shares of 000 won per face value from other obligees. In the case of YA, under the circumstances where economic difficulty exists, the Plaintiff agreed to purchase 00 won per share by requesting the Plaintiff to acquire the shares of issues and requesting to purchase them. Thus, this is merely a transaction with the Plaintiff to purchase 00 won per share. Therefore, it should be deemed that the parties have traded normally in accordance with the principle of freedom of contract (Dispute 3).

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination

1) Determination on key issues 1

Article 26 (4) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8435 of May 17, 2007; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides for "transferor or transferee and a person who falls under the provisions of Article 19 (2) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20621 of Feb. 22, 2008; hereinafter the same shall apply)" as one of the specially related persons, and provides for "any person who has a special relation with the transferee's investment," and Article 13 (6) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act and Article 4 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 579 of Oct. 29, 2007; hereinafter the same shall apply)" as an "executive officer, employee, and other person who has a contractual relationship with an executive officer" under Article 13 (4) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act as "executive Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, etc."

In this case, according to the records of evidence Nos. 1 and 1 (the corporate register), it is confirmed that sulfurA was appointed as a director of the XX building business on April 10, 2001, but retired on April 10, 2004. Barring any special circumstance, sulfurA constitutes an officer of the XX building business for which five years have not passed since the retirement at the time of the transfer of the shares at issue, and according to the evidence No. 13, it is recognized that the Plaintiff, the transferee of whom was at the time, held 12,00 shares out of 20,00 shares of the XX building business, and thus, the Plaintiff and YellowA is deemed to be a specially related person provided for in Article 35 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and Article 26 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

2) Determination on key issues 2

In light of the following circumstances, Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 10, and Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 3, the plaintiff alleged that he was only one of the total debt groups of the Y building industry and did not participate in the management of the Y building industry. However, unlike the above assertion, the plaintiff continued to make efforts to escape from the conflict of management of claims YA including YellowA. In particular, the YA had the non-party B accept the 8,00 shares of the Y building. Since the fact that the plaintiff took office as the representative director of the Y building and actually worked for the above company, the YA's submission of confirmation documents and evidence No. 1 to the effect that it did not have any other reason to acknowledge that the plaintiff did not participate in the Y1's disposal of the shares after the Y building's purchase of the shares from the non-party CC. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 17501, Apr. 1, 2008>

3) Judgment on key issues 3

In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff purchased x-type shares from B, etc. up to April 2004 to 00 won per share. However, it cannot be an appropriate comparative example to assess the market price of the shares at issue on the date of appraisal ( October 15, 2007) from 3 years and 6 months before 2007. ② The Plaintiff submitted a written confirmation to the effect that the claim group agreed to transfer the shares at the face value of the P-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-ownership-type-type-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based------------------------------------------------------.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.