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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of OOOO(including additional tax) on September 12, 2013 against Plaintiff Jeon-A on September 12, 2013 and the imposition of capital gains tax on Plaintiff ChoB shall be revoked.

A. On May 12, 2012, Plaintiff Jeon Soo-soo (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), Plaintiff ChoB is the deceased’s spouse, and Cho Jae-B is the third degree of relationship, ChoE, and Cho F is the deceased’s external colon’s external colon.

B. From April 27, 2010 to June 14, 2010, the Deceased transferred 1,500 shares (hereinafter “the instant 1 shares”) of the PE Electronic Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co., Ltd.”) on the securities market. Plaintiff ChoB also transferred 5,005 shares of Nonparty Co., Ltd from June 17, 2010 to November 3, 2010 (hereinafter “the instant 2 shares”) on the securities market.

C. Pursuant to Article 94(1)3 (a) of the Income Tax Act and Article 157(4)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 25580, Dec. 30, 2010; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act”), the Defendant determined that the above transfer by the deceased and the Plaintiff ChoB is subject to capital gains tax on the grounds that the deceased, Plaintiff ChoB, ChoB, ChoF, ChoD, and ChoE are specially related under each subparagraph of Article 20 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 23592, Feb. 2, 2012; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes”).

D. On July 4, 2013, Plaintiff Jeon Soo-B reported the tax amount payable under the name of the deceased as an OOO on July 4, 2013, with the amount of tax payable on the same day as the OOB as the amount of tax payable on the same day after the due date.

E. However, on September 12, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff, a transferee of the deceased’s duty to pay taxes, of the transfer income tax for the year 2010, and notified the Plaintiff ChoB of the transfer income tax for the year 2010, and notified the Plaintiff ChoB of the transfer income tax for the year 2010 (including the directors of the additional tax on general non-declaration and the additional tax on non-declaration) (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”).

F. The Plaintiffs underwent the pre-trial procedure.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 5 evidence, Eul 1 to 5 evidence (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

(1) Of Article 157 (4) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, the part of "the relatives under Article 20 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes and other related persons" (hereinafter "the provisions of this case") are in violation of the Constitution for the following reasons, and thus, the disposition of this case based thereon is unlawful.

In the case of the relationship between ○ couple or family members, the shares owned by the non-resident shall be deemed as shares owned by one shareholder, and one shareholder shall be deemed as a major shareholder based on the market price of the unfairly added shares, and the burden of excessive taxation is increased by one shareholder. This is against Article 36(1) of the Constitution prohibiting discrimination against a person with special interest without reasonable grounds.

○ The instant provision is in violation of Article 23(1) of the Constitution that guarantees property rights, as it does not ask one shareholder and his/her related parties to whom it actually belongs, by clarifying the fact that there is no purpose of tax avoidance because it is possible to avoid the application of this provision by clarifying the fact that there is no purpose of tax avoidance, and there is no other legislative purpose or tax policy need to justify such legislative form, and thus, is in violation of the excessive prohibition principle, and is subject to disadvantageous disposition due to relatives’ acts.

Unlike Article 101(1) of the Income Tax Act demanding that the transaction was made with a person with a special relationship with the purpose of unfairly reducing the tax burden on income, the provision of this case is deemed to be a major shareholder by summing up the shares owned by one shareholder and a person with special interest, regardless of the purpose of acquisition, if only one shareholder and a person with special interest acquire shares, regardless of the purpose of acquisition.

(2) Article 94 (1) 3 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") delegates the concept of a major shareholder to the Presidential Decree and takes into account the ratio of stocks owned, total market value, and all other circumstances, but Article 157 (4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Decree of this case") only provides that the ratio of stocks owned shall be limited to subparagraph 1, and subparagraph 2 simply provides that the total market value of stocks shall be determined based on the total market value of stocks. The legal provision of this case delegates the determination of a major shareholder in consideration of the matters related to stocks owned by one shareholder and other shareholders. Since the provision of this case is excessively broad to the scope of a specially related person under Article 20 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which is used as the scope of a major shareholder, the provision of this case is null and void because it deviates from the scope of delegation of the law of this case and is contrary to the Civil Act and thus null and void.

(3) Even if the disposition of this case is lawful, it was difficult for Plaintiff Jeon-soo to understand that the transfer of shares of this case was subject to capital gains tax, rather than the original owner of shares of this case, and that the transfer of shares of this case was made two years prior to the deceased’s death, and that the Plaintiffs did not have any institutional device to grasp the current status of shares held by their relatives and relatives, and thus, it was impossible for the Plaintiffs to know that the transfer of shares of this case 1 and 2 constitutes the taxation requirement of capital gains tax because there was no institutional device to grasp the current status of shares held by their relatives and relatives. If the Defendant made a disposition of capital gains tax more before the deceased and Plaintiff ChoB, the deceased and Plaintiff ChoB were paid capital gains tax in a timely manner and did not impose penalty tax on the Plaintiffs. Accordingly, there was a justifiable reason under Article 48(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes. Therefore, the portion of penalty tax of this case is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) The plaintiffs asserted that the disposition of this case is unlawful on the premise that the total market value of the non-party company's shares owned by the deceased and the FF, DoD, ChoB, and the non-party company's shares owned by the deceased constitutes at least ten billion won at the time of December 31, 2009. However, considering the overall purport of the arguments in the statement in the evidence Nos. 6 through 8 as of December 31, 2009, the non-party company's shares as of December 31, 200 and the deceased were owned by 8,000 shares and 5,000 shares owned by the plaintiff ChoB as of December 31, 209, the total market value of the non-party company's shares exceeded 10 billion won as an OOO. Accordingly, regardless of whether the non-party company's shares were owned by the non-party company's shares, the plaintiff and the deceased ChoB are liable to pay capital gains tax on the major shareholders.

(2) Whether the instant provision violates Article 36(1) of the Constitution

There has been a long-term discussion on whether to impose capital gains tax on the transfer of listed stocks. However, the legal provision of this case also decided to impose capital gains tax on cases where listed stocks are traded in order to prevent abnormal donation using listed stocks and transfer real estate or other assets in order to ensure the balance of taxation. As such, even if listed stocks are included in taxable objects, it is deemed that the legislative intent to gradually expand the scope of the transfer income tax is reflected in the trade, etc. of those who own stocks above a certain size in order to alleviate the shock of the capital market rather than for all stocks at once and to protect the interests of small investors to a certain degree (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Order 2004Hun-Ba32, 2005Hun-Ba63, 102, 104, 105, etc.).

Even if the provision of this case provides that a person with a special interest with listed stocks identical to one shareholder who is the taxpayer has caused a difference in the tax burden between the person having a special interest with the same listed stocks as the taxpayer, such discrimination shall be deemed reasonable and reasonable, and as long as the provision of this case sets the scope of the major shareholder in consideration of the financial policy, national economy, social policy, and tax and technical factors, such discrimination shall not be deemed arbitrary or unfair.

Therefore, this part of the argument is without merit.

(3) Whether the instant provision violates Article 23(1) of the Constitution

(A) Whether it is against the principle of excessive prohibition

As seen earlier, the purpose of this case is to induce the sound development of the capital market by imposing tax on capital income generated from the transfer of stocks on a preferential basis, and by imposing tax on only a major shareholder, and therefore, the legitimacy of the purpose of this case is recognized. To achieve the above legislative purpose, the provision of this case is divided into a major shareholder and non-taxable shareholder who are subject to taxation on the basis of a certain share ratio or total market value, and this is one of the appropriate methods to achieve the legislative purpose. This is to meet the minimum of infringement and the balance of legal interests, as long as the provision of taxation on capital gains by a major shareholder is established in accordance with the ordinary standard of taxation on capital income.

Therefore, this part of the argument is without merit.

(B) Whether it goes against the principle of prohibition of the chain of interest

Article 13(3) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea applies only to cases where a person takes unfavorable treatment solely on the ground that he/she is a relative, despite the fact that he/she does not have any substantial relation between the act of the relative and the principal (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Order 2005Hun-Ma19, Dec. 12, 2005).

It is reasonable to see that, in the case of a spouse, the taxpayer himself/herself and his/her spouse share daily life with the same economic unit, and therefore, the provision of this case is based on such substantial and economic relationship between the principal and his/her spouse, or is not disadvantageously treated solely on the ground that he/she is a spouse, even though his/her actual and significant relationship cannot be recognized.

Therefore, this part of the argument is without merit.

(4) Whether it is balanced with Article 101(1) of the Income Tax Act

The purpose of Article 101 (1) of the Income Tax Act is to realize fair taxation by embodying the substance over form principle as a system to prevent tax avoidance and realize the fair burden of burden. Thus, the essence of the same is that the transaction to be denied is to be applied when the transaction is deemed to have unjustly reduced the tax burden on the income. However, the purpose of this case also lies in promoting a balance of taxation with the transfer of other assets, such as real estate, by determining where to impose tax on the income from the transfer of listed stocks anywhere, thereby promoting a balance of taxation with the transfer of other assets, such as real estate. Therefore, it cannot

Therefore, the instant provision does not require the purpose of unfairly reducing the tax burden between a single shareholder and a specially related person. Therefore, the instant provision cannot be deemed to be excessively harsh compared to Article 101(1) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, this part of the allegation is without merit.

(5) Whether the Enforcement Decree of this case goes against the principle of no taxation without law

The legal provision of this case delegates the scope of a major shareholder to the provisions of the Enforcement Decree of this case, but it is necessary to automatically cope with the change in the scale of the economy and determine the scope thereof. In light of the legislative purport of the provision of this case, if ordinary persons, it can be predicted that the provision of this case must consider the ratio of stocks owned and the total market price of stocks, etc. In addition, the provision of this case must not be deemed to have delegated to the effect that it must meet all the requirements of the ratio of stocks owned and the total market price. The provision of this case also includes one shareholder and other major shareholders in the scope of a major shareholder. The provision of this case can avoid the imposition of capital gains tax by distributing stocks in the name of a major shareholder not to fall under the scope of a major shareholder, if it is calculated based on only one stockholder who transferred the relevant stocks. Thus, it is difficult to achieve the legislative purpose of the transfer income tax provision of this case, which is to achieve the legislative purpose of this case, the provision of this case must be properly prescribed within the scope of delegation to achieve the legislative purpose.

Therefore, this part of the argument is without merit.

(6) Whether the enforcement decree of this case is contrary to the Civil Act

The enforcement decree of this case is to determine whether the shares owned by the plaintiff ChoB and the deceased are the major shareholders in the aggregate of the shares owned by one shareholder and other shareholders, and it may be deemed that the aggregate of shares owned by the plaintiff ChoB and the deceased is contrary to the marital separation system. However, even if the shares or the total market value of the shares owned by the husband and wife are added up, it is merely to determine whether they are the major shareholders subject to capital gains tax, not to include the married couple's capital gains, and thus, the transfer income tax shall be imposed on each person's capital gains in determining the tax base and tax amount

Therefore, this part of the argument is without merit.

(7) Whether additional taxes are illegal during the disposition of this case

Under the tax law, in cases where a taxpayer violates various obligations, such as reporting and payment, under the tax law without justifiable grounds, in order to facilitate the exercise of the right to impose taxes and the realization of a tax claim, the taxpayer’s intention and negligence is not considered as administrative sanctions imposed as prescribed by the individual tax law. On the other hand, the taxpayer’s failure to perform his/her obligations should be imposed as to non-performance of his/her obligations under the tax law unless there are justifiable grounds, such as cases where it is reasonable for the taxpayer to be unaware of his/her obligations or where it is unreasonable for him/her to expect the performance of his/her obligations (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du1622, Apr. 28, 2011).

The disposition of this case is imposed on the deceased and the plaintiff ChoB, who is the couple, regardless of whether ChoF, ChoD, and ChoE owned the shares of the non-party company, and regardless of whether or not they owned the shares of the non-party company, the deceased and the plaintiff ChoB are liable to pay capital gains tax on the transfer income of listed shares. There is no evidence to deem that there is a special situation where the deceased and the plaintiff ChoB, who is the couple, are unable to confirm the current status of stockholding between the deceased and the plaintiff ChoB. In light of the above, there is no evidence to support that the plaintiff Jeon-A could not know the status of the shares held by the deceased as the deceased and there is no special circumstance where

Therefore, this part of the argument is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiffs' claim is dismissed as it is without merit.