2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

A. As of February 9, 2012, the Defendant: (a) deemed that 40,00 shares per share (hereinafter “instant shares”) were acquired at low price of 5,279 won from BB as of February 9, 201; (b) on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s 2000 environment (the trade name was changed from August 21, 200 to that of August 21, 2012; hereinafter “instant company”); (c) based on the supplementary assessment method, the Defendant assessed the value of 1 share as 26,279 won per share; and (d) based on the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 1357, Dec. 15, 2015; Presidential Decree No. 2609, Feb. 3, 2015; and (d) calculated the gift tax amount of 10,010,000 won per share to the Plaintiff under Article 26 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act.

B. On June 29, 2015, the Plaintiff sought a revocation of the instant dispositions to the Tax Tribunal, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s request on December 10, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, 2-2, Gap evidence 4-1, 2-2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff lent money to AA through BB, and changed the shares in this case which were held in the name of the Plaintiff for the purpose of collateral security. This is merely a receipt of collateral, and the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have taken over the shares in this case. The actual shareholders of the shares in this case are AA, and thus, each of the dispositions in this case is unlawful on the premise that the Plaintiff, not the actual shareholders of the shares in this case, took over the shares in this case at a low price.

In addition, the value per share of the instant shares shall be assessed as 26,279 won, and the transfer value shall be calculated, and the tax amount calculated accordingly is also illegal.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) Transactions, etc. between AA and BB, and the Plaintiff

A) AA entered into a partnership agreement with EO on January 2010 to jointly manage the instant company with EO. At the time, AA had invested KRW 150 million and acquired 30,000 shares of the instant company corresponding to 50% of shares.

B) AA had 28,000 shares of 30,000 shares held in its own name in the name of BB in around 201. AA appeared as a witness in the case of 2016Guhap5404 (the case of revocation of disposition of imposition of capital gains tax, etc. raised by BB; hereinafter referred to as the "related case") and stated that the title of 28,000 shares was changed to BB in the name of 30,00 shares of 30 shares held in its own name.

C) The Plaintiff, as a passbook of BB, remitted the total of KRW 400 million on March 21, 201, and KRW 500 million on April 29, 201, to KRW 500 million.

D) Around April 201, the instant company offered 80,000 shares with capital increase. BB deposited KRW 200,000 in the instant company’s account on April 6, 2011, and was allocated shares (40,000 shares) by participating in the instant company’s capital increase.

E) On June 27, 2011, the Plaintiff returned KRW 300 million out of the above KRW 500 million, which was remitted to BB, and on the same day, leased KRW 300 million to the instant company on the condition that the Plaintiff would receive interest on January 1, 201.

F) On February 9, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a share transfer agreement with BB to acquire 40,000 shares of the instant case at KRW 5,000 per share in KRW 200 million. Accordingly, among the shares of the instant company, 68,000 shares issued in the name of BB, 40,000 shares were changed in the name of the Plaintiff, and the remaining 28,00 shares were changed in the name of the wife Kim○○.

AA testified in related cases to the effect that the name of the instant shares was delayed in repayment to the Plaintiff, the original lender, and that the name was changed for the purpose of checking.

G) On August 31, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a mutual agreement on acquisition of shares of KRW 20,000, among the instant shares, to transfer KRW 5,000 per share to KRW 100 million. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s share shares in the name of the Plaintiff was changed to Kim○○○. Meanwhile, on the same day, the Plaintiff leased KRW 100,00 as the share transfer price between Kim○ and Kim○ on the same day on February 28, 2013, but was repaid KRW 100,000 from Kim○ on December 28, 2012.

H) On December 18, 2012, among the instant shares held by the Plaintiff until that date, KRW 20,000 per share was transferred to salary ○○○ in KRW 100 million per share, and on the same day, KRW 100 million was paid from salary ○ on the same day.

I) On July 26, 2013, the Plaintiff paid 200 million won loans from the instant company, and settled the claims and obligations by exempting the remainder of 100 million won.

2) Other circumstances, such as the other transactions and taxation of AA.

A) around April 2012, AA, ○○○, and Ma○○○ entered into a partnership agreement with the instant company and the instant company to jointly operate the instant ○ Industry Development (hereinafter “○○ Industry Development”). On April 2, 2012, AA transferred 23,380 shares of the instant company, which were held in the name of Kim○○, KRW 530,000,000,000,000, and on May 8, 2015, the head of the Gangseo-gu Tax Office deemed AA as a real shareholder, and imposed and notified AA of KRW 69,670,980,00,00 for the transfer income tax of 2012 on the said transaction.

B) around August 2012, AA, AA, A, A, A, P, and A, P, P, P, and P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, A, and P, agreed to manage the instant company. Accordingly, P, P, A

C) On December 10, 2012, AA and sexual ○○ entered into an agreement on the purchase and sale of shares and land with the content that all assets, such as management rights and outstanding shares, of the instant company, are transferred at KRW 3.88 billion. Accordingly, on December 18, 2012, 11,24 shares of the instant company held in the name of Kim○○, among 30,620 shares of the instant company held in the name of Kim○, and 19,376 shares were transferred in the name of Yu○○, and on the same day, 36,128 shares of the instant company held in the name of Yu○○, among 52,620 shares of the instant company, were transferred in the name of Yu○○○, and 16,492 shares were transferred in the name of Yu○○○ on the same day. As seen earlier, as seen in the foregoing, 200 shares were transferred in the name of the Plaintiff’s name of the instant company.

D) On May 8, 2012, the Director of the Gangwon District Tax Office deemed AA as a real shareholder for each transaction of 11,244 weeks from Kim○○ to be transferred from Kim○○○, 19,376 weeks from BB to be transferred from ○○○, 36,128 weeks from BB to ○○○, and 16,492 weeks from BB, and imposed and notified AA of KRW 84,378,880 on May 8, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, 5 through 9, 26 evidence, Gap evidence 34-1, 2-5, 9, 10 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

In light of the following circumstances, i.e., ① the Plaintiff acquired the instant shares (40,00 shares per share) from BB from 5,000 won per share, and transferred the shares to 5,000 won per share to 5,000 won per share. The substance of the transaction appears to be the collateral transaction for collecting the loan, and it does not appear to have been transferred for 20,000 shares, among the instant shares held by BA upon AA’s request, the Plaintiff transferred 20,000 shares among the instant shares, which were held by BB, to ○ Kim○, and changed the form of transaction for 10,000 won in lieu of receiving KRW 100,00,00,000 to ○○, which appears to have been transferred for 100,000,000 won before and after the Plaintiff’s use of the instant shares to ○○, i.e., the Plaintiff’s ownership or ownership of the instant shares.

In regard to this, the Defendant alleged to the effect that the transfer of the instant shares was made under the pretext of payment in kind for KRW 200 million loaned by the Plaintiff to BB. However, in light of the above circumstances, the Plaintiff evaluated the instant shares as KRW 5,00 per share in accordance with the proposal or contract of AA after then, transferred them to AA (Gla○○) or to Y○○○, and recovered the amount corresponding to the loan, etc., the above 200 million actual obligor appears to be AA, and it is difficult to determine that the transaction between the Plaintiff and BB is in a quid pro quo relationship. Accordingly, the above assertion is rejected

Therefore, on a different premise, each of the instant dispositions in this case cannot be relieved of revocation due to its illegality, as it was based on the low price transfer between the Plaintiff and a related party.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.