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

A. From January 9, 2003 to April 13, 2010, the Plaintiff served as a representative director of AAA Global Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “AAB”) who engages in manufacturing and wholesale and retailing of Seodaemun-gu and Toys.

B. On September 15, 2004, the Plaintiff drafted a share acquisition agreement (hereinafter referred to as “share acquisition agreement of this case”) with a director who held 50% of the total number of outstanding shares of the non-party company to purchase 18,000 non-party-listed shares of the non-party company (hereinafter referred to as “the instant shares”) (hereinafter referred to as “the instant transaction”), and between AB and AB to purchase the instant shares at KRW 90,000 (5,000 per share) (hereinafter referred to as “the instant shares acquisition agreement”).

C. The director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office: (a) conducted an investigation of stock change with respect to the non-party company, deemed that the Plaintiff purchased the shares of this case as indicated in the stock transfer agreement ①; and (b) deemed that the transaction of this case falls under the case of acquiring the property at a price lower than the market price from a person with a special relationship under Article 35 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (hereinafter “Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”) and Article 26 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and accordingly, assessed the price per share of the shares of this case at KRW 73,695 in accordance with the supplementary assessment methods under Article 63 subparagraph 1 (c) of

D. Accordingly, on August 12, 2009, the Defendant decided and notified KRW 377,763,340 of the gift tax on KRW 936,510,000 of the value of donated property generated by acquiring the instant shares at low prices to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. On November 9, 2009, the Plaintiff appealed to the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on March 31, 2010.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 2-2 through 4, Gap evidence 5-1, 2, Eul evidence 6-1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 2-2, Eul evidence 3-1 through 3, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 5-1 through 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff settled the value of KRW 60,000 per share from AB on September 2004 (total transfer value of KRW 108,000,000) and acquired KRW 18,000 per share of the instant shares. However, upon the request of ABB at the time of reporting the transfer income tax, the Plaintiff was only drafted the stock acquisition agreement (total transfer value of KRW 90,000,000) with the value of KRW 5,00 per share for tax return.

Although the Defendant submitted evidence related to the Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 1,80,000 to AB for a total of several times, the instant disposition is unlawful since the instant transaction was determined as “the donation of profits from the transfer of low price under Article 35(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act” on the basis of the instant share acquisition contract ①.

(b) Related statutes;

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

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) The share acquisition agreement that the Plaintiff claims as the actual contract for the instant transaction (hereinafter “instant share acquisition agreement”) is to purchase the shares of this case at KRW 1,080,000 per share ( KRW 5,000 per share). The following are written. On the other hand, the share acquisition agreement B is not accompanied by the share acquisition agreement ① and the Plaintiff’s certificate of personal seal impression.

(2) If the Plaintiff paid the share acquisition price as indicated in the share acquisition agreement B, the agreement and the financial data submitted as evidence are as follows.

(A) A written agreement prepared by the Plaintiff and AB (hereinafter referred to as “instant agreement”)

(b) Details of financial data

(3) The Plaintiff worked as the chief executive officer from the CCB’s “CC bargaining” company operated by AB, and established a non-party company independently from the above CC bargaining in around 2001, and at the time of incorporation of the non-party company, Ansan invested 50% of the shares at the time of incorporation of the non-party company.

(4) On the other hand, new EE, AD, and Kim Jong-Un are the mother, South dynamics, and relatives of AB.

(5) While engaging in a transaction between the non-party company and the supply price of 469,00,000 won (from January 22, 2003 to February 2, 2003) by operating the business entity referred to as "YAA" in the name of Dong (Do/Retail, panty run business) from January 22, 2001 to July 4, 2005, E has been engaged in a transaction between the non-party company and the non-party company and the supply price of 218,00,000 won (from February 71, 2004). In addition, euD traded equivalent to the supply price of 218,00,000 won (FF).

(6) Other

(A) The date of June 2005 to July 7, 2005 CCR was settled in default, and AB left the Republic of Korea immediately after the default.

(B) The employee of theCC bargaining stated, under the direction of the No.B, that “the Plaintiff has a record of checking the details deposited once with the prior E’s account by keeping KRW 15 million.”

(C) On May 6, 2009, the Plaintiff submitted to the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office a certificate of the personal seal impression attached to the instant share transfer agreement ① and the said agreement to the Plaintiff. Based on the above data, the Plaintiff recommended the Plaintiff to submit a revised return of the acquisition price, while the Plaintiff recommended the Plaintiff to submit a revised return of the transfer price, and at the same time, asserted that the instant shares sales price was KRW 108,00,000,000, when the instant shares sales price was actually KRW 108,000.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence 3-1 to 3, Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 8-1 to 8, Gap evidence 9, Gap evidence 10-1 to 4, Gap evidence 11, witness symnasium testimony, fact-finding results for the branch of the Bank of Korea, the whole purport of arguments, and the whole purport of arguments

D. Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the facts as seen earlier and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is difficult to view that the transfer price of the instant shares was made differently from the actual ones at the request of an advanceB to reduce the transfer income tax following the transfer of shares as alleged by the Plaintiff, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise. The Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

O) The share transfer agreement B, which the Plaintiff claims as a genuine share transfer agreement, does not require the transferor’s seal impression to be attached, unlike the share transfer agreement ①. Furthermore, the seal impression affixed on the share transfer agreement is different from the seal impression affixed on the share transfer agreement ① even if it is deemed as the land.

O) The amount paid by the Plaintiff to the New E does not coincide with the amount agreed to be paid under the instant agreement. The Plaintiff asserts that it is difficult to believe that AB only demanded an amount to be paid by AB in return for any increase in the amount of money between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff. Furthermore, the Plaintiff did not reasonably explain that the amount of the principal of the investment by AB (90,000,000) and the agreed amount to be paid to AB during nine months from April 2003 to December 2004 (15,000,000 won each month) paid to AB during the said period is not in accord with the Plaintiff’s actual payment to AB during the said period.

O) In light of the fact that the amount of KRW 90,00,000 of the capital invested by AB to be guaranteed by the instant agreement is consistent with the acquisition price of the instant shares, it is highly probable that AB would have determined KRW 90,00,000 of the investment principal as the acquisition price of the instant shares in the process of collecting the funds invested by AB in the Nonparty Company in the process of collecting the funds invested by AB.

O NewE and ADD have been engaged in a transaction separately with the Plaintiff while operating an enterprise called “NA” and “FFF”. Therefore, solely on the grounds that they are family members of Amace, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Plaintiff’s deposit in the account in the name of AE and AD is the amount that the Plaintiff paid to AB. In this regard, the Plaintiff asserts that the deposit amount should be deemed the purchase price of the instant shares, on the ground that there is no receipts or other evidence to support the fact that the supply price under the said tax invoice was paid by any other means.

O The plaintiff asserts that he paid the purchase price of the shares of this case to a passbook in the name of the new EE administered by AB, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

O) In light of the background and content of the submission of the share acquisition agreement B, the Plaintiff’s assertion is difficult to easily believe in light of the following grounds: (a) the Plaintiff submitted the share acquisition agreement ① at the time of the initial tax investigation; (b) received prior notice of gift tax assessment; and (c) submitted the share acquisition agreement B.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.