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

Cheong-gu Office

The disposition imposing the gift tax by the director of the tax office on May 30, 2012 against Plaintiff 00 on October 7, 2010, and the disposition imposing the gift tax by the director of the tax office on Plaintiff 00 on Plaintiff 1 on February 13, 2013, each of which is revoked by the director of the tax office on Plaintiff 00. < Amended by Act No. 1090, Oct. 7, 2010>

A. The Plaintiffs decided to construct a building at the expense of the Plaintiffs on the ground of the same 00-0 square meters and 000 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) as OO-dong O-dong O-dong, O-si, O-si, O Kim00 and O-si, O-si, O-si, O-si, and 00-0 square meters (hereinafter “O-si”). As to the instant land between July 1, 2007 and Kim 00 on July 1, 2009, the instant lease was concluded with the following terms.

B. After leasing the instant land, the Plaintiffs newly constructed the building on the ground level 1 and 6th above (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) and completed the registration of initial ownership on June 21, 2007, and leased the instant land and the instant building to 000 companies (hereinafter referred to as “non-party companies”) on June 21, 2009 as follows.

C. The Plaintiffs received 1/2 shares of each of the instant land from Kim 00 on October 7, 2010, and assessed the value of donated property on January 31, 201 as the officially assessed individual land price of the instant land, and deemed the KRW OO of the gift tax as the OO of the gift tax, respectively, to the Defendants, who are the competent tax authority.

D. The Defendants calculated the sum of the appraised value of the instant land and buildings by dividing the rent for one year by the rate prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy (0.12) under the provisions of Article 61(5) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (hereinafter “Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”) and Article 50(8)2(b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23040, Jul. 25, 201; hereinafter the same shall apply) as the owner of the instant land and buildings (GGO0) and the owner of the building (the plaintiffs) are different from each other, and since the owner of the building concludes a lease contract with a third party, they calculated the sum of the appraised value of the instant land and buildings as KRW 0.12 x 0.00 (O.200 (O.200) x 200 (O.200) x 1200 (O.20) x 50.20) x 010

E. Accordingly, Plaintiff Kim 00 filed an appeal with each Tax Tribunal on June 29, 2012, and Plaintiff Kim 00 on May 1, 2013, but was dismissed on November 28, 2013.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The parties' assertion

(1) Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

① In the case of the instant land, a lease contract is concluded between the Plaintiffs and Kim Young-young on the land itself ( regardless of the argument below), and the conversion price of rent, etc. for the instant land shall be calculated pursuant to Article 50(7) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act based on rent and deposit for one year for the instant land. In such cases, the publicly assessed individual land price of the instant land is higher than the conversion price, such as rent, etc., so the publicly assessed individual land price of the land shall be deemed the value of donated property pursuant to

② The Supreme Court’s decision on the provision of Article 50(8) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act applied by the Defendants (Supreme Court Decision 2007Du10884 Decided April 23, 2009) was rendered with respect to the establishment of a new evaluation method with no basis for the upper law (Supreme Court Decision 2007Du10884 Decided April 23, 2009). The above provision is null and void in violation of the upper law. In substance, the above provision does not reflect the market price of the land and the standard market price of the building at the same rate, and thus, it is unlawful that the amount of the gift tax is too unreasonable,

③ Even if Article 50(8) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act can be applied, in the instant case, the Plaintiffs concluded a land lease agreement with the Kim Z, and subsequently, concluded a lease agreement with the non-party company to the effect that the non-party company succeeds to the terms of the land lease agreement as it is. Therefore, Article 50(8)2 (a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 3 is as listed in the "relevant Acts and subordinate statutes".

C. Determination

(1) Determination on the validity of Article 50(8) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

First of all, as to whether Article 50(8) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act applied by the Defendants in the disposition of this case is null and void, Article 61(5) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "in the case of an asset for which a lease agreement has been concluded, the larger amount between the value assessed as prescribed by Presidential Decree on the basis of rent, etc., and the value assessed as prescribed in paragraphs (1) through (6) shall be the value of the relevant asset." Article 50(7) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "The value assessed as prescribed by Presidential Decree" under Article 61(5) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act means the total amount of rent calculated by dividing one year rent by the rate prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance and the rental deposit (hereinafter referred to as "unit value of rent, etc.") and the value calculated based on the conversion of rent, etc. under Article 80(8) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is not applicable to the subsequent owner of the same case where it is concluded with a third party.

In terms of the content, the plaintiff asserts that the officially assessed individual land price and the standard market price of the building are not reflected in the market price at the same rate, and that the amount of the gift tax is high due to the excessive evaluation of the land price. However, in dividing the converted value of rent, etc. into the land and the part of the building, the "standard market price of the land and the building" (the value of the land and the building appraised by the provisions of Article 61(1) through (4) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act) is based on the supplementary method of assessment of the market price of the land and the building stipulated in the Act, and it cannot be concluded that the market price of the land and the building is not reflected in the same ratio. In addition, as seen above, unless the above provision does not deviate from the upper limit of delegation, the validity of the provision can not be denied just because it is reasonable (i.e., it is a problem different from that of the previous Supreme Court ruling by the plaintiffs that the basic rules of the National Tax Service cannot be considered as the standard

Article 50(7) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2010, Jun. 21, 2009; Presidential Decree No. 2020, Oct. 21, 2009; Presidential Decree No. 2020, Oct. 21, 2009; Presidential Decree No. 2010, Jan. 21, 2009; Presidential Decree No. 2010, Jan. 22, 2009; Presidential Decree No. 2010, Jan. 22, 2009; Presidential Decree No. 20130, Jan. 22, 2009; Presidential Decree No. 20130, Jan. 22, 2006; Presidential Decree No. 20130, Jan. 22, 200).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.