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

A. The Plaintiff and the representative director and the shareholder ofCC Communications Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) were allocated forfeited shares 28,166 shares (hereinafter “instant shares”) from the subscription for new shares issued three times in 2011, as set out in the list of the following paragraphs.

B. From September 2, 2013 to September 27, 2013, the Defendant conducted an investigation into the change of shares with respect to the instant company. Considering that the allocation of shares constitutes a donation of profits arising from the increase of capital under Article 39(1)1 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the Defendant assessed its profits pursuant to Article 63(1)1(c) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and Article 54(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and determined and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 198,356,520 as indicated below (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On March 5, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Tax Tribunal to revoke the instant disposition, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on June 30, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 to 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant company did not have any substantial operating profit for several years due to excessive disbursement of personnel expenses, etc. for sales. From 2008 to 2010, in order to borrow funds for the operation of the company from financial institutions, the company’s accounting was conducted by appropriating the cost of outsourcing services, such as the remuneration for executive officers and employees, and the fee for advertising agency in 2010, as each intangible asset development cost. Accordingly, when calculating profits from the allocation of the instant shares based on the financial statements, the company’s excessive disposition should be revoked as unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination

1) Relevant regulations and legal principles

Article 60 (1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "the value of property on which gift tax is levied under this Act shall be based on the market price as of the date of donation (hereinafter referred to as "the base date of appraisal"). Article 60 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that when it is difficult to calculate the market price for the purposes of paragraph (1), the value appraised by the methods prescribed in Articles 61 through 65 in consideration of the type, size, transaction circumstances, etc. of the relevant property shall be deemed the market price, and where it is difficult to calculate the market price, the value calculated by the supplementary method shall be deemed as the market price." Article 63 (1) 1 (c) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "the net value of the relevant corporation's stocks and equity shares not listed in the Exchange shall be appraised by the method prescribed by the Presidential Decree in consideration of the assets and earnings of the relevant corporation," and Article 54 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "the net asset value of the relevant corporation shall be calculated by the net asset value per share per 5" as the net value per share.

Meanwhile, the burden of proving the net asset value is, in principle, a tax authority. However, in calculating the net asset value of the relevant corporation as of the date of transfer, the asset value of the relevant corporation falls under exceptional causes, such as statement of financial position or other facts. Thus, the burden of proving such special reasons is against the taxpayer (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du12458, May 13, 2003).

2) Determination as to whether accounting for window dressing has been carried out

In light of the following circumstances, each of the above evidence, evidence Nos. 18, and evidence Nos. 6 through 9, which can be seen by comprehensively considering the purport of the entire pleadings, it is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that there was a window dressing dressing account alleged by the plaintiff only with the descriptions of evidence Nos. 6 through 17, 20 through 24, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the above assertion by the plaintiff. Therefore, the disposition of this case is lawful since the defendant cannot be deemed to have any error in assessing the value of the shares of this case, and the plaintiff's assertion cannot be accepted.

A) Accounting data and the Plaintiff’s specific assertion

The amount indicated in each income statement and statement of financial position of the company from 208 to 2010 and the amount claimed by the plaintiff are as listed in the following table:

【Income Statement】

【Statement of Financial Status】

B) The portion concerning benefits

① As can be seen from the above income statement, the Plaintiff asserts that the instant company disbursed the instant amount of KRW 2,134,405,211 (= KRW 358,746,260 + 1,775,65,658,951 + 1,858,561 as the salary for executive officers and employees in 2010 + KRW 295,365,810 + KRW 1,563,202,751) as the salary for executive officers and employees in 2010. However, the Plaintiff asserts that the income statement was insufficient as the salary for executive officers and employees in 2010.

② However, the payment record (Evidence No. 9) prepared by the instant company pursuant to Article 120(1) of the Corporate Tax Act stated that the instant company paid KRW 1,691,060,964 in the year 2010 as an executive’s salary, not only the aforementioned KRW 2,134,405,211, but also the amount claimed by the Plaintiff as well as KRW 1,858,568,561, which is the amount indicated in the said income statement. In addition, each of the instant reports on the performance of withholding taxes (Evidence No. 12-1,5,52,428,763, as well as KRW 1,852,428,763, which is the amount claimed by the Plaintiff.

③ In regard to this, the Plaintiff asserted that: (i) 2,131,692,971 won on the basis of the payment record of benefits (i) 1,691,060,964 won on the basis of the payment record of benefits; (ii) 260,065,587 won on the payment record of a person who retired from early 200 + 83,830,380 won on the non-reported amount of 198,146,068 - 101,410,405,211 won on the basis of the payment record of benefits; (iii) 1,852,428,7630,380 won on the basis of the payment record of benefits; and (iv) 2,134,405,211 won on the basis of the payment record of benefits; (iv) the difference between the total amount of benefits paid by the Plaintiff and the total amount of KRW 481,27148,166,28

(4) Next, the portion omitted in submitting a statement of payment of benefits that the Plaintiff claims against the person who left the company.

Examining KRW 260,065,587, the details of the report related to benefits (Evidence 10-1 of A), the monthly benefit ledger in 2010 (Evidence 10-2 of A, Evidence 16-1 through 12 of A), and each report on the performance of withholding taxes (Evidence 12-5 and 6 of A), which are the data to support the above amount, are difficult to believe, and even if the above amount is included, the amount of the monthly benefit ledger in 2010, as claimed by the Plaintiff, is less than the amount of wages.

⑤ Furthermore, the Plaintiff submitted a list of probationary employees (Evidence 14-1), a list of monthly workers of probationary employees (Evidence 14-2), a monthly settlement of salary (Evidence 14-3), a written contract for payment account (Evidence 14-4), a written contract for entry, a personal statement, and a personal staff member (Evidence 15-1 to 38) as evidence to support the Plaintiff’s failure to report amounting to KRW 198,146,068. However, the above item is doubtful in light of the point of view of the argument that was raised only after the trial, and it seems that at least part of the payment remittance details of the instant company’s wage account (Evidence 14-4 of Evidence 14-4) were included in the former financial transaction (Evidence 17-1 to 12 of Evidence 17-12 of the instant case) as evidence submitted by the Plaintiff and also included in the calculation details of the instant company’s salary.

(6) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant company appropriated the benefits of executives and employees in 2010 as development costs is difficult to accept.

C) The portion concerning outsourcing service charges

① Although the instant company paid KRW 936,871,084 as an advertising agency fee, etc. in 2010, the Plaintiff submitted each of the following documents: (a) the agency contract (Evidence 20), the tax invoice (Evidence 21), the account ledger (Evidence 22), the account ledger (Evidence 22), the director of the cost account (Evidence 23), and the director of the account book (Evidence 24), the D bank B2B information (Evidence 24) as evidence to support the instant company’s appropriation of the cost as an advertising agency fee, etc.

② However, except for the detailed information B2B (Evidence A 24), the Plaintiff is not able to submit as evidence the reliable data proving the fact that the Plaintiff actually paid the advertising agency fee, and the submitted tax invoice (Evidence A 21) seems to have been kept for accounting purposes at the beginning, and it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the actual cost was paid only by means of credit cards, simplified receipts, etc.

③ Also, even if D Bank B2B detailed information (No. 24) is considered to be a system for automatically transmitting a contract concluded between a buyer and a seller through electronic commerce to a seller and automatically sending the purchase funds borrowed under a contract entered into between a buyer and a seller through electronic commerce to the seller. In comparison with the amount remitted to a seller pursuant to the aforementioned D Bank B2B detailed information (Evidence A) and the account ledger (Evidence A22) already appropriated by the Plaintiff as the sales cost, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff appropriated the funds for the development cost again even if the advertising commission was appropriated as the sales cost, or that the monthly advertising commission was placed at intervals of three months in the second half.

④ Furthermore, since the advertising agency fee is determined by a certain ratio and is calculated by multiplying the total advertising revenue by a certain ratio, it is difficult to keep a fixed amount as shown in the ledger of the accounts (Evidence A). However, it is difficult to believe that the outsourcing service fee, which is shown in the detailed information (Evidence A No. 24) by the Plaintiff, is calculated in a large number of fixed amounts.

D) Other circumstances

① According to the statement of financial position of the instant company, an intangible asset of 2,722,915,060 won in 201, an intangible asset of 4,359,917,848 won in 2012, and an intangible asset of 5,270,981,448 won in 2013, and the value of the intangible asset has been continuously increased. In particular, an intangible asset of 5,630,393,452 won in the statement of financial position prepared after the instant disposition is included in the statement of financial position in 2014.

② The report on development costs and software verification of the instant company prepared by the EE Accounting Corporation around April 2014 was prepared by appropriating the portion to be appropriated as employee benefits from the year 2008 to 2010 in the development cost, and making it an assetizing, etc. Accordingly, it conforms to the Plaintiff’s assertion. However, the instant company’s insufficient payment of benefits and outsourcing service cost, etc., and the grounds for determination, etc. are not presented at all. Therefore, in the instant lawsuit in which there was no objective data proving the Plaintiff’s assertion other than the above verification report, the content of the said verification report cannot be reliable.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just with this conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.