2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. One-half of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement in Gap's Nos. 1 through 4, and in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings:

A. On December 27, 2001, the Plaintiff transferred 94,000 shares (hereinafter “the shares of this case”) of &&&&(hereinafter “&&&&&”) for an unlisted company to the head of Anhym in Korea on December 27, 2001, to KRW 5,000 per share, the total amount of KRW 470,000 per share, but did not file a preliminary return and final return on the tax base of transfer income.

B. In conducting a tax investigation, the Defendant: (a) calculated the transfer value per share of the instant shares as KRW 1,617,740,000 on the ground that the transfer price of the instant shares constitutes a low price transfer between the persons interested in black trees; (b) calculated the transfer value per share as KRW 1,617,740,000 according to the supplementary assessment methods under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act; and (c) imposed and notified the Plaintiff on October 4, 2005, KRW 174,398,040 for the transfer income tax corresponding to the year 202.

C. As a result of the Plaintiff’s filing of a national tax appeal against the above disposition, on October 20, 2006, the date of disposition of the instant shares on December 27, 2001 by the National Tax Tribunal, notwithstanding the fact that it was erroneous by the Defendant on January 9, 2002. As such, the Defendant was determined to rectify the tax base and tax amount by calculating the transfer value of the instant shares by weighted averageing the net profit and loss amount in the business year in which the business year was operated on January 9, 200, by ordering the value per share value per share, and thereby calculating the transfer value of the instant shares, and by rejecting the remainder of the claim.

D. In accordance with the decision of the National Tax Tribunal, the Defendant revoked the initial imposition disposition in full and again issued an order of KRW 14,149 to KRW 1,617,740,000 for each share of the instant shares, thereby correcting the transfer value of the instant shares to KRW 1,330,06,00,000, and then applied the tax rate of KRW 10 per cent by deeming the instant disposition to be a small and medium enterprise for R& & & 10% in the process, determined that the initial imposition disposition was erroneous, and applied the tax rate of KRW 20 per cent by applying the initial tax rate of KRW 141,496,580 to the amount increased by KRW 141,49,894,620 to the Plaintiff on April 5, 207.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case should be revoked on the following grounds.

(1) &&의 주식이 특수관계인이 아닌 안@@, 유@@, 이@@ 등과 1주당 5,000원에 거래된 사실이 있어 이 사건 주식의 1주당 양도가액용 5,000원으로 보아야 하고, 설령, 이 사건 주식의 1주당 시가가 5,000원이 아니라 하더라도. 이 사건 주식 처분시의 주식형가방식에 위법이 있다.

(2) Although the applicable tax rate for the disposal of the instant shares was 20%, it is a small and medium enterprise for R&D purposes, the tax rate should be 10%.

(3) The Defendant imposed capital gains tax of KRW 174,398,040 in relation to the transfer of the instant shares, but imposed capital gains tax of KRW 315,894,620 as the instant disposition, contrary to the principle of pride in alteration of disadvantage stipulated under Article 79 of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

(1) The part of the plaintiff's assertion

소득세법(2001. 12. 31. 법률 제6557호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다) 제101호 제1항을 '거주자의 행위 또는 계산이 그 거주자와 특수관계 있는 차와의 거래로 인하여 당해 소득에 대한 조세의 부담을 부당하게 감소시킨 것으로 인정되는 때에는 그 거주자의 행위 또는 계산에 관계없이 당혜연도의 소득금액을 계산할 수 있다'고 규정하고 있고, 소독세법 시행령(2002. 12. 30. 대통령령 제17825호로 개정되기 전의 것. 이하 갈다) 제98조 제1항 제l호는 특수관계에 있는 자에 당해 거주자의 친족을 규정하고 있으며, 같은 조 제2항 제1호는 조세의 부당을 부당하게 감소시킨 경우로 특수관계에 있는 자에게 시가보다 낮은 가격으로 자산용 양도한 때를 규정하고 있는바, 원고는 친 족관계 있는 장모 안@@에게 이 사건 주식을 양도하였고, 그 양도가액 1주당 5,000원 옹 피고가 상속세 및 증여세법에 따라 명가한 1주당 14,149원에 비추어 현저하게 낮은 가격으로 보이므로. 이 사건 주식의 양도가액을 소득세법 시행령 제167조 제4, 5항의 규정 내용에 따라 상속세 및 증여세법 제60조 내지 제64조와 동법 시행령 제49조 내 지 제59조의 규정을 준용하여 평가한 가액에 의하여야 할 것이다.

한편, 상속세 및 증여세법(2007.12.31 법률 제8828호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다) 제60조 제2항은 시가는 불특정 다수인 사이에 자유로이 거래가 이루어지는 경우에 통상 성립되는 가액으로 평가하도록 규정하고 있고, 갑 제4, 5, 6호중, 을 제12호중, 을 제13호중의 1 내지 3의 각 기재에 연흔 천체의 취지를 종합하연. &&의 대표이사 인 이@@이 안@@, 유@@, 이@@에게 원고로부터 &&의 주식을 매수할 자긍을 현금으로 대여해 주어, 안@@ 등이 증여세를 납후한 후 이@@으로부터 증여받은 자금으로 2001. 12. 27. 원고로부터 안@@이 &&의 주식 86,100주를. 유@@이 87,000주 를, 이**이 151,000주를 각 1주당 5,000원에 매수한 사실이 인정되는바, 위와 갈은 매수 경위에 비추어, 위 매매사혜는 불특정 다수인 사이에 자유로이 거래에 의하여 흉 상척으로 성립하는 가액으로서 그 거래가액을 양도재산의 객관적 교환가치를 적정하게 반영하는 정상척인 거래로 인하여 형성된 가격이라고 할 수 없어, 이틀 이 사건 주식 의 양도가액으로 인정할 수는 없다.

Therefore, the transfer value of the shares of the unlisted company which can objectively be seen as objectively justifiable shall be calculated in accordance with the method under Article 54(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17828, Dec. 30, 2002; hereinafter the same shall apply) pursuant to Articles 60(3) and 63(1)1(c) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. However, according to Article 54(1) and 54(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17828, Dec. 30, 200; hereinafter the same shall apply) as of December 27, 201 as of the time of disposal of the shares of this case, the defendant calculated the net asset value per share as 198,093,115,711 won per share by dividing it as 14,000,000 won per share and calculated as 14.

(2) The part concerning the plaintiff's assertion

Comprehensively taking account of the purport of evidence evidence Nos. 7 through 9 and Eul evidence Nos. 15-1, the defendant also recognized the fact that he employs 387.2 full-time workers while running a general building construction business on December 31, 200, and that he is not a company notified as a company belonging to a large enterprise group under Article 9 (1) of the Act on the Regulation of Domination and Fair Trade under Article 14 (11) of the same Act at the time of transferring the shares of this case. Thus, the defendant's assertion that the above provision of Article 167-2 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, Article 2 of the Framework Act on Small and Medium Enterprises (amended by Presidential Decree No. 8360, Apr. 11, 2007) and Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on Small and Medium Enterprises (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17026, Dec. 27, 2000) is illegal for the transfer of shares of this case.

(3) The part concerning the plaintiff's assertion

Article 79(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8860 of Nov. 16, 2007) provides that in making a decision on a request for a trial that is dissatisfied with the tax assessment referred to in Article 79(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8860 of Nov. 29, 2008), a decision unfavorable to the claimant shall not be made. Such prohibition of disadvantageous change shall be allowed where the contents of the decision of the trial are more unfavorable to the claimant than the subject of the decision of the trial. This prohibition is allowed where the tax authority finds new omissions or errors in the course of making a new tax assessment based on the clear contents of the decision of the decision of the trial, and changes the tax base or tax amount due to the discovery of new omissions or errors in the course of the decision of the tax assessment on the basis of the clear contents of the decision of

(4) The reasonable tax amount;

Korea-Japan, applying the tax rate of 10% with respect to the transfer of the shares of this case, the transfer tax amount shall be calculated once again by applying the tax rate of 10%, and its amount shall be 169,57,430 to 169,57,430. The disposition of this case is lawful within the scope of KRW 169,57.430 of the said recognition, and the portion exceeding this amount is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part exceeding 169,577,430 won among the disposition of this case is unlawful and thus revoked, and the remaining part is lawful and thus it is reasonable to dismiss the plaintiff's claim against this part. Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition.