2. Each of the plaintiffs' remaining claims is dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 2/5 are assessed against the Plaintiffs, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendants.

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendants’ imposition of each gift tax (including additional tax) listed in attached Table 1, which was made against the Plaintiffs on December 1, 2016, shall be revoked.

A. BB Housing Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “B Housing”) andCC control (hereinafter referred to as “CC control”) are corporations operating real estate rental business, and the Plaintiffs, DopD and MaE own 100% of the shares issued by each of the instant companies, and the status of shares held is as listed below.

B. From September 5, 2016 to October 23, 2016, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office conducted a gift tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiffs, and confirmed that the Plaintiff’s father largestD lent money to each company of this case without compensation as indicated in the following table in 2014 and 2015:

C. Accordingly, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office: (a) deemed that the Plaintiffs, a shareholder, received benefits from transactions with a specific corporation under Article 41 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 1357, Dec. 15, 2015; hereinafter “Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”); and (b) deemed that the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act [the former Enforcement Decree (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25195, Feb. 21, 2014); and (c) with respect to the gift tax reverted to the year 2015, the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26960, Feb. 5, 2016; hereinafter referred to as the “Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”) and notified the Defendants of the gift tax calculated by adding each of the aforementioned Enforcement Decree to “the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act before amendment 2014” and “the latter Enforcement Decree” [2016(3616) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance.

D. On December 1, 2016, the Defendants respectively determined and notified the Plaintiffs of gift tax (including additional tax) as indicated in the following table (hereinafter “each disposition of this case”).

E. The Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with each of the instant dispositions and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on February 2, 2017, but was dismissed on April 19, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, and 13 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

For the following reasons, each of the dispositions of this case is unlawful.

1) AB Housing Loss Corporation, etc.

B Housing is applicable to a corporation with losses of account and tax brought forward, and the provisions of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act of this case are null and void in cases where assets were provided without compensation to a corporation with losses. Therefore, it shall be applicable to cases where the gift gains of B house cannot be calculated.

2) Violation of the gift tax reverted to year 2014

Article 31(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act was amended on February 21, 2014 and enforced on February 21, 2014. According to Article 2 of the Addenda, the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act after the revision of 2014 stipulates that the gift tax shall apply to the portion of donation after the enforcement of the said Act. Therefore, the imposition of gift tax on January 1, 2014 based on the aforementioned provision is contrary to the retroactive taxation principle. In particular, since the meaning of the "controlling shareholder" under Article 41(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and its relatives are abstract and unclear, the scope is stipulated in Article 31(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act after the amendment of 2014, and the clarification of the taxation requirement also violates the principle

3) Invalidity of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

Although Article 41 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act delegates only the matters concerning the legitimate method of calculating the increase in the value of stocks of a specific corporation owned by the shareholder, etc. to the Presidential Decree, if assets are provided to a specific corporation without compensation, such provision itself shall be deemed to have been obtained by the shareholder, etc., and thus, it shall be deemed that the shareholder, etc. should be liable to pay gift tax regardless of the existence or absence of the profit actually obtained by the shareholder, and

4) Illegal calculation of amount of gift tax

In evaluating the shares of each company of this case, there is no basis for calculating only the net asset value according to the supplementary valuation methods. Even if a real estate and a multi-owned corporation are real estate, the net profit and loss value in addition to the net asset value should be considered in accordance with the supplementary valuation methods. It cannot be deemed that the value of donated property is identical to the increase in the value of the shares. Moreover, the defendants did not calculate gift tax based on the increase in the value of the shares in each disposition of this case. Therefore,

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) B’s housing is a corporation established with housing construction business, real estate sale and lease business, etc. on March 25, 1991 as its business purpose;CC is a corporation established with the design construction business, real estate sale and lease business, etc. on March 25, 1991 as its business purpose. Of the matters regarding the officers of each of the instant companies, the major contents related to the Plaintiffs are as listed in the following table:

2) The changes in shares of each of the instant companies are as listed in the following table.

3) The main contents of the standard balance sheet as of December 31, 2013 of each of the instant companies are as listed below.

In addition, the total limit of assets as of December 31, 2014 of BB house is the OO members. Among them, the land is the OO members, the building is the OO members (Cumulative cumulative depreciation), the total limit of assets ofCCling is the OO members, and among them, the land is the OO members (Cumulative depreciation).

4) The main contents of the Statement of Adjustment of Capital and Reserve Funds from 2004 to 2008 are as follows:

5)CC controling and tearD completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 30, 199 with respect to 1/2 shares of each of the 1/2 shares of OOOOO-dong OOO-dong OOOOO-dong (hereinafter “the instant real estate”). BB house completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 18, 2003 with respect to the said 1/2 shares owned by Maximum DD.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 4, 5, 11 through 14, 17, and 22, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) Whether a corporation constitutes a deficit in BB housing

A) Article 41(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "where a domestic corporation has losses or is under business suspension or closure, or a person with special interest in shareholders or investors of a profit-making corporation under the control of its relatives under the provisions of Article 45-3(1) makes transactions falling under any of the following subparagraphs with such specific corporation and makes profits as determined by the Presidential Decree, the amount equivalent to such profits shall be deemed the value of assets donated to the shareholders or investors of such specific corporation for the pertinent business year." Article 31(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that "the specific corporation under Article 41(2) of the Act provides that "the amount of losses shall be deemed as losses for each business year which exceeds the amount of losses for the pertinent business year" under Article 41(1)1 of the Corporate Tax Act (Article 41(2)6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that "the amount of losses for the pertinent business year which exceeds the amount of losses for each business year which belongs to the date of donation" under Article 418(2) of the Corporate Tax Act.

B) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the foregoing provision, B’s house constitutes a corporation with deficits as stipulated in Article 41(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act as of January 1, 2014 and January 1, 2015, by comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances, comprehensively taking into account the aforementioned facts acknowledged as Gap’s evidence No. 5 and the purport of the entire pleadings.

(1) A corporation with losses under Article 41(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act refers to a corporation with losses under Article 31(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. Such losses are where the total amount of losses incurred during the pertinent business year under Article 14(2) of the Corporate Tax Act exceeds the total amount of earnings accrued during the pertinent business year, which is the amount not deducted in the calculation of the tax base for each business year thereafter, arising from the business year that began within five years before the beginning date of each business year, and Article 41(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act does not limit the time when losses occurred.

(2) The purport of Article 41(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act that provides for a corporation with deficits under Article 41(1) is to impose gift tax on an irregular donation that provides for the benefit of shareholders, etc. of a specified corporation without bearing the corporate tax on the donation amount by offsetting the donation amount with deficits. Article 18 Subparag. 6 of the Corporate Tax Act provides that the amount appropriated to compensate for losses carried forward without compensation, among the value, etc. of assets received without compensation, shall not be included in the gross income. In such cases, where any undeductible deficit exists, the corporate tax shall not be levied where the assets, etc. received without compensation,

③ The balance of losses in the year 198, which was shown in the Statement of Capital and Reserve in 2013 and 2014, submitted by the Plaintiff, shall be stated as the deduction of all losses in the year 2001 and 2002 according to the Statement of Capital and Reserve in 2004 and 2008, and the balance of losses in the year 2002 shall be stated as the deduction of all losses in 2001 and 2002. The balance of losses in the year 2001 and 1998 shall not be deemed to remain, but it shall be deemed that the balance remains in the year 2001 and 2002. Accordingly, it shall be deemed that the balance remains in the year 209 and 2002. Accordingly, it shall be deemed that there remains any unpaid losses.

2) Whether the imposition of gift tax for the year 2014 is legitimate

A) Article 41 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12168, Jan. 1, 2014; Act No. 12168, Jan. 1, 2014; Article 41 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12168, Jan. 1, 2014) expands the scope of black corporations to which the aforementioned provision applies by including "the controlling shareholder under Article 45-3 (1) and the profit-making corporation controlled by his/her relatives" in the specific corporation; and Article 31 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25195, Feb. 21, 2014) provides that "the controlling shareholder of the specific corporation and his/her relatives are at least 50/100 of the total shareholder of the specific corporation, and Article 45-3 (5) 2 of the Act provides that "a person who falls under the relationship between the controlling shareholder, his/her spouse, or its specially related person."

However, according to the purport of the above facts and the entire argument, CCTV does not constitute a juristic person temporarily closed or closed business, unlike BB housing. Therefore, CCTV constitutes a juristic person with at least 50/100 of the shareholding ratio of the controlling shareholder and his/her relatives, and constitutes a specific juristic person expanded by Article 31 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act after the amendment in Articles 41 and 2014 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and it constitutes a transaction where a shareholder or an investor of a specific juristic person under Article 31 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, who is the father of the Plaintiffs and the representative director ofCC, gratuitously lent money to the company of this case without compensation after the amendment in Articles 41 and 2014 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and Article 31 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act.

B) First of all, Article 41(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12168, Jan. 1, 2014), which provides for the standard and scope of "profit-making corporations controlled by the controlling shareholder and his/her relatives" and "specially related persons of the shareholder or his/her specially related persons" in each of the dispositions of this case, shall be prescribed by the Presidential Decree without specifically determining the standard and scope of "profit-making corporations controlled by the controlling shareholder and their relatives" in the Act, and the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12168, Jan. 1, 2014) shall enter into force only on February 21, 2014, which provides for the standard and scope of "profit-making corporations controlled by the controlling shareholder and their relatives" and "specially related persons of the shareholder or its specially related persons," and Article 45-3(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 202014, Feb. 21, 2014, 201).

However, among each disposition of this case, the portion of the gift tax for the year 2014 pertaining toCCP is deemed to have been donated to the Plaintiffs on January 1, 2014 with maximum DD’s free loan. At the time of the donation, the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is in force before the amendment of 2014, which does not entirely stipulate the criteria and scope of “the scope of profit-making corporations controlled by the Presidential Decree” and “the specially related persons of its shareholders or investors,” which is delegated by the Presidential Decree under Article 41 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act at the time of the donation. Ultimately, the portion of the gift tax for the year 2014 pertaining toCCP among each disposition of this case was made on the basis of only the provision of the said Act that delegated the requirements for taxation to the Enforcement Decree for the specific corporation extended under Article 41 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and it cannot be deemed unlawful in light of the principle of no taxation without the law or the principle of no retroactive taxation. Therefore, the remaining portion of each disposition of this case is unlawful.

C) Next, Article 41(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12168, Jan. 1, 2014); Article 41(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12168, Jan. 1, 2014; hereinafter referred to as "the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act") provides that "where a person prescribed by Presidential Decree, who has a special relationship with a shareholder or an investor of a corporation under suspension or closure, makes any of the following transactions with the specific corporation and obtains profits as prescribed by Presidential Decree, the amount equivalent to such profits shall be deemed the value of donated property to the shareholder or investor of the specific corporation." Article 31(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act") includes a corporation with losses as a subject of the gift tax, and Article 41(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act provides that the amount of losses before the donation shall be included in the gross income pursuant to Article 41(1) of the Act:

However, as seen earlier, the purport of the provision of Article 41(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is to impose gift tax on a specific corporation with deficits by donation of property to offset the donation amount by its deficits, and without imposing corporate tax on shareholders, etc. of a specific corporation. As seen earlier, even if Article 31(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act prior to the amendment of 2014 goes beyond the delegation scope of the mother Act, the benefit under Article 41(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act before the amendment of 2014 is null and void, Article 31(6) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "for the purpose of the provision of Article 41(1) of the same Act, it shall be limited to the amount calculated by multiplying the profit falling under any of the following subparagraphs (for a corporation falling under the provisions of subparagraph 1 of paragraph (1), the pertinent deficit shall be limited to the extent of the profit accrued to the shareholders, etc. of the specific corporation and the relatives of the corporation, who did not belong to 10000 million won.

D) Therefore, the imposition of gift tax for the year 2014 on the ground that the least DD lent money free of charge toCC and BB as of January 1, 2014 is unlawful.

3) Whether Article 31(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act becomes invalid after the amendment in 2014

A) Article 41(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7010, Dec. 30, 2003; Act No. 9916, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter referred to as the “amended by Act No. 2003”) provides that where a person who has a special relationship with a shareholder or investor of a corporation (specific corporation) who has deficits or has suspended or closed its business, obtains the profits through transactions falling under any of the following subparagraphs with the specific corporation, the person shall be deemed to have obtained the profits, the amount equivalent to the profits shall be deemed to have been donated to the shareholder or investor of the specific corporation, and Article 31(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9916, Jan. 1, 2010) provides that the method of calculating the profits shall be delegated to the Presidential Decree. Meanwhile, the profits under Article 31(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act of 2003 shall be multiplied by the ratio of stocks, etc.

Although Article 31(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act of 2003 delegates only "the calculation of profit" to the Enforcement Decree on the premise that the largest shareholder, etc. has obtained profit through a certain transaction with a specific corporation, it shall be deemed that the profit acquired by a specific corporation is "the profit acquired by the shareholder, etc." before the amendment in 2014, and thus, the value of donated property shall be calculated. In addition, according to the revised provisions of 2003, if the shareholder, etc. has no profit acquired by the actual provision, even if the property is provided to the specific corporation without compensation, it may be excluded from the subject of gift tax. However, pursuant to Article 31(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act of 2014 before the amendment in 2014, if the property is provided to a specific corporation without compensation, it shall be deemed that the shareholder, etc. has obtained profit by its own and shall be liable to pay gift tax (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2009Du96396.

B) Meanwhile, Article 41(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9916, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter “2010 provision”) amended by Act No. 9916 is partly amended to the effect that only a shareholder, etc. of a specific corporation has obtained benefits as prescribed by Presidential Decree. However, Article 31(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25195, Feb. 21, 2014; hereinafter “the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”) remains intact until the amendment of Act No. 25195, supra, on the premise that the shareholder, etc. has gained benefits corresponding to donated property under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act by offering property to a specific corporation without compensation, etc. It is reasonable to view that the provision is 10 years old and 20 years old and same as that of a specific corporation’s amendment to the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is invalid.

C) Furthermore, Article 41 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12168, Jan. 1, 2014) provides that the said provision shall apply by including the controlling shareholders and some of their relatives in the taxable income subject to taxation. Article 31(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that the amount calculated by subtracting the amount equivalent to the value of donated property from the amount of income payable at the value of donated property, etc. after the amendment in 2014 (limited to cases where the relevant amount is 10 million won or more) shall be extended within the scope of the specific gift tax corporation, and the remaining taxation requirements shall be the same as those of the specific Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act which provides that the shareholders, etc. shall have the same profits as those of the specific corporation, such as provision of property without compensation, shall be deemed as invalid for 10 years since the amendment of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12140, Jan. 1, 2014).

4) Whether the imposition of gift tax for the year 2015 is legitimate

A) On January 1, 2015, the imposition of gift tax for the year 2015, among the dispositions of this case, was deemed to have been made by deeming that there was a gift to the Plaintiffs. As seen above, since Article 31(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, which was in force at the time of its amendment in 2014, becomes null and void, gift tax cannot be imposed by applying the above provision. However, Article 41 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act has its legislative purpose to prevent shareholders of a specific corporation who have special relationship with the donor through donation to the specific corporation from obtaining profits without tax burden or by relaxing tax burden. ② Article 41(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that where shareholders or investors of the specific corporation obtain profits from the specific corporation through transactions, etc. providing assets, etc. to the specific corporation without compensation, the imposition of gift tax for the specific corporation should be made unlawful by considering the increase in the value of the specific corporation’s assets to be donated to the shareholders or investors of the specific corporation for 20 years thereafter.

B) Furthermore, each of the instant shares held by the Plaintiffs cannot be deemed to be a sale and purchase example that adequately reflects the objective exchange value of the shares held by the Plaintiffs as non-listed shares, and it is difficult to compute the market price by any other means. As of the end of 2014, the acquisition value of the shares should be calculated by supplementary evaluation methods under Article 54 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. Since the holding ratio of real estate to the total assets in the case of BB houses as of the end of 2014 reaches O%, and CCTV reaches OO%, it shall be calculated based on net asset value pursuant to Article 63(1)1 (c) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and Article 54(4)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26069, Feb. 3, 2015). The acquisition value of the shares held by the Plaintiffs and the shares held by the Plaintiffs is an increase of OB stocks held by each 14.

C) The plaintiffs asserted that the assessment of shares of each company of this case cannot be calculated based on the complementary assessment method under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. However, according to the current status of changes in shares of each company of this case, each company of this case is not only the plaintiffs and most DD, and family companies under the control of E, but also the trade based on the objective exchange value with respect to each company of this case. Thus, the above assertion by the plaintiffs is rejected.

D) However, as seen earlier, the imposition of gift tax for the year 2014 against the Plaintiffs cannot be deemed unlawful, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there was donated property as of January 1, 2014. Therefore, in the event that gift tax for the year 2015 is calculated based only on only the donated property as of January 1, 2015, the reasonable amount of tax on the Plaintiffs is as indicated below. As such, in the disposition imposing gift tax for the year 2015, the portion exceeding each of the “justifiable amount of tax” stated below should be revoked.

5) Sub-decisions

Ultimately, the Defendants’ imposition of gift tax for the year 2014 among each of the instant dispositions by the Defendants is unlawful, and thus, should be revoked. Of the imposition of gift tax for the year 2015, the part exceeding the above OOO members among the OO members of Plaintiff MaximumS and the part exceeding the above OO members among the OO members of Plaintiff MaximumG should be revoked as it is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

1) The definition of the corporation with the deficits under Article 31(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is the same as the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act before the amendment in 2014 and the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act after the amendment in

2) The amendment was made on December 26, 2008 by Law No. 9267, which was 10 years.

3) In the case of BB housing, as seen earlier, it constitutes a juristic person with deficits, but in light of the legislative intent and Article 31(6) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended in 2014) does not stipulate that the value of donated property shall be calculated within the scope of losses in the case of a juristic person with losses, the amount of losses shall be calculated regardless of the amount of losses, and whether it is lawful

4) If the maximum amount of the loans lent to each company of this case without compensation to the company of this case at an appropriate interest rate (8.5% per annum) under Article 41-4 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the amount equivalent to the interest to be paid by each company of this case shall be calculated by subtracting from the net asset value of each company