2. The litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

A. Since 203, thisA, the father of the plaintiffs, had leased 12-25 square meters and 112-60 square meters and 65.9 square meters and 112-60 square meters and 65.9 square meters (hereinafter "the land in this case"), on three lots, including the land in this case and the land in this case and 112-47 square meters and 7.6 square meters and above the ground, the 12-12-47 square meters and the 112-5 square meters and above (hereinafter "the building in this case"), which are the plaintiffs, EA and EA (hereinafter "non-party corporation"), and completed registration of preservation of ownership, the building in this case has been leased to the third party from that time.

B. Upon the death of thisA on August 28, 2006, the Plaintiffs, co-inheritors, agreed that the Plaintiff B shall own 28/100 shares in the instant land, which is inherited property, and that the Plaintiff AB shall own 18/100 shares in each of the 18/100 shares, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant land on February 6, 2007 with the foregoing content as a result of a consultation division.

C. The Defendants calculated the market price of the rent for the instant land by calculating the total rent for the instant building and land received from a third party in accordance with the standard market price of the instant building and the ratio of the publicly assessed individual land price for the instant land, etc.: (a) deeming that the instant land is leased at a low price to the non-party corporation with a special relationship by the non-party corporation, and that the tax burden on the land rent has been reduced unfairly; (b) applying Article 41 of the Income Tax Act to the portion from 2003 to 2006, the Defendants imposed and notified the comprehensive income tax on the Plaintiff B, thisCC, KimD, ED, EE, and EF as indicated in the attached global income tax assessment sheet (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The specific method of calculating the market price of rent for the instant land is as follows.

(1) First, from the total amount of rent for the instant building and the instant land received from a third party, the non-party corporation calculated the amount of the sales revenue of the instant building and the entire rent for the instant land, based on the remainder other than the management expenses (such as electricity, water supply, cleaning, etc.) agreed separately from the rent for the lease contract, as indicated below.

(2) Next, the rent for the instant building and the instant land, calculated as above, sought a rent for the instant land and the instant land according to the standard market price of the instant building and the ratio of the amount calculated by multiplying the individual land price of the instant land by the size and the publicly assessed individual land price of the instant land, etc., and thereafter, the rent for the instant land and the instant land was calculated in accordance with the ratio calculated according to the publicly assessed individual land price of the instant land and the instant land. As a result, the amount was at least 5:1 to 6:1 (the amount calculated by multiplying the individual land price and the size of the instant land; the standard market price of the instant building is as indicated below).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 9, Eul evidence 1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiff's principal

The Defendants reported the rent for the instant building and land, and divided the amount calculated by deducting only the direct management expenses of the instant building from the total rent received from a third party. The Defendants divided the rent for the instant building and land in proportion to the standard market price of the instant building and the publicly assessed individual land price of the instant land. ① The rent that the non-party corporation received from a third party is the rent for the instant building and land only when the non-party corporation excluded not only the direct management expenses of the instant building but also the indirect management expenses, such as personnel expenses, from the total rent received from a third party. ② Since the development is restricted and the sale of the instant land and the purchase and sale of the instant land are almost little, the officially assessed individual land price of the instant land and the standard market price of the building are not reflected in the actual value of the land and buildings. Accordingly, the instant disposition that determined the tax amount by applying the provision of the wrongful calculation and calculation to the market price of the instant land is unlawful

(2) Defendant’s principal

① The rent that the non-party corporation received from a third party can be deemed as the market price formed by normal transactions. Since the rent excludes the management fee agreed upon by dividing it from the lease contract, it is reasonable to use it as the standard for calculating the rent of the land of this case. ② Furthermore, it is reasonable to divide the above rent based on the standard market price of the building of this case as publicly notified under Article 61(1)2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and the officially assessed land price of the land of this case, etc. in the case of this case where the rent of the building of this case calculated as above is lower than the expense that the non-party corporation paid, and thus, the reason why the rent of the building of this case was lower than the expense that the non-party corporation paid, and thus, it does not mean that the above calculation method is unreasonable.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

First, with respect to the method of calculating the rent for the instant building and land, which is considered as the basis for the calculation of the market price of the instant land, the rental deposit, monthly rent, etc. for the lease contract concluded with a third party who does not have any special relationship is ordinarily determined according to the objective exchange value for the right to use the relevant property, and such amount is relatively close to the market price. From this perspective, as prescribed by the lease contract between the third party who does not have any special relationship with the non-party corporation, the Defendants are acceptable to consider the amount excluding the management expenses from the total rent for the instant building and land as the basis for calculating the rent for the instant land (On the other hand, as seen earlier, as long as the non-party corporation prescribed the rental contract with a third party as separate item for the management expenses for the instant building in question, it is difficult to view that the expenses such as personnel expenses, etc. are excluded from the rent under the name of indirect management expenses, and there is no data to regard the expenses actually paid by the non-party corporation during the pertinent taxable period as expenses related to the management of the instant building).

Next, with regard to whether the method of calculating the rent of the instant building and land in proportion to the standard market price of the instant building and the publicly assessed individual land price of the instant land, is appropriate, the above pro rata method should reflect the market price at the same proportion of the land standard market price and the building standard market price. In this case, there is no evidence to acknowledge it in the instant case. The officially assessed individual land price and the building standard market price are completely different systems from the calculation entity and methods, and are generally known to have been less than those of the publicly assessed individual land price. Therefore, the above pro rata method is not unreasonable, and as a result, it brings about a result of the excessive assessment of the global income tax on the land rent income. In full view of the above, calculating the rent of the instant building and land in proportion to the standard market price of the instant building and the publicly assessed individual land price of the instant land in proportion to the publicly assessed individual land price of the instant land, the reasonable method of calculating the rent of the instant land in proportion to the publicly assessed individual land price of the instant land.

Therefore, under the premise that the amount calculated as above is the market price of rent for the instant land, the Plaintiffs deemed leased at a low price to reduce the tax burden on the leased income of the instant land at a low price, and the instant disposition that applied the rejection of unfair calculation by applying the wrongful calculation is unlawful. Furthermore, the data submitted in the instant lawsuit alone cannot be seen as the market price of rent for the instant land, and thus, the instant disposition should be revoked in full.

3.In conclusion

If so, the plaintiffs' claims are justified.