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

(including penalty tax) shall be revoked.

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for adding the judgment as stipulated in the following Paragraph 2 to the Plaintiff’s new argument at the trial. As such, this Court’s reasoning is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The Defendant, at the time of the instant disposition, considered the value of the instant shares as KRW 1,091 per share calculated by the supplementary assessment method. However, there were many trades with respect to the stocks of the forest prior to the transfer of the instant shares, which occurred between KRW 4,300 per share and KRW 10,533 per share, and the average sale price per share was approximately KRW 5,360,00 per share. Thus, the instant disposition is justifiable only within the scope of the tax amount calculated based on the aforementioned actual transaction price of the instant shares.

B. Determination

1) Article 60(1) and (3) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9916, Jan. 1, 2010) provides that where the value of donated property is calculated based on the market price as of the date of donation and it is difficult to calculate the market price, the value of the donated property shall be calculated based on the value appraised by the supplementary method stipulated in Articles 61 through 65, taking into account the type, size, transaction circumstances, etc. of the pertinent property. Meanwhile, Article 60(2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that “Where the market price under paragraph (1) is freely traded between many and unspecified persons and is recognized as the market price under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, such as expropriation, public sale, appraisal, etc. shall be included.” Article 49(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23591, Feb. 2, 2012) provides that where an exchange of the pertinent property is one of the market price, it shall be objectively determined as the market price.

2) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in evidence Nos. 2-2, 49, and 50, AA’s shares were purchased on October 1, 2006 by the Plaintiff, UBB, DoCC, and GongD (EE). The Plaintiff and UBE’s shares were purchased on October 18, 2006 and DoCC’s shares were purchased on October 18, 2006 and November 17, 2006. Rather, there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was a change in the market price between the Plaintiff and UBCC, DoCC, and DoCC (EE)’s shares on October 12, 2006 and its shares on November 17, 2006, and there is no further need to accept the Plaintiff’s claim that there was a change in the market price between the Plaintiff and UBE’s shares at the time of each transaction.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

It is so decided as per Disposition.