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

A. On April 25, 2003, the Plaintiff, the largest shareholder of the BB Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “instant company”), and the representative director (hereinafter referred to as the “instant company”), agreed to transfer 18,000 shares of the instant company (hereinafter referred to as “instant shares”) to 270,000,000 won (hereinafter referred to as “15,000 won per share”) of the said company’s shares (hereinafter referred to as “the instant shares transfer of the instant shares”) and under the terms of transfer, the transferor transferred the shares to the transferee on the date of the balance receipt (hereinafter referred to as May 7, 2003), and paid the balance of 30,000,000 won on the date of the contract. < Amended by Act No. 630, May 24, 2003; Act No. 6883, May 7, 2003>

B. The Plaintiff was an employee of the instant company at the time of the contract, and retired from the said company, and on May 31, 2003, the Plaintiff was registered as a director of the instant company at the corporate registry.

C. After investigating the change in shares of the instant company, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office determined that the Plaintiff acquired the instant shares at a price lower than the market price from a person with a special relationship pursuant to Article 35(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18177, Dec. 30, 2003; hereinafter the same) and Article 26(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18177, Dec. 30, 2003; hereinafter the same), after evaluating the change in shares with respect to the instant company. The director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office around that time assessed the market price of the instant shares at KRW 747,82,000 per share (= 41,549 wonx18,000 per share) and notified the Defendant of the imposition of gift tax.

D. On February 15, 2009, the Defendant issued the instant disposition imposing gift tax amounting to KRW 91,806,960 on the Plaintiff with the tax base of KRW 377,882,00,000 obtained by subtracting KRW 100,000 from the difference between the market price of the instant shares and KRW 270,000,000,000.

E. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on April 22, 2009, but was dismissed on November 17, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 13, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (each number No. 1) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Since the Plaintiff was merely an employee of the instant company at the time of the contract, it was unlawful for the Defendant to regard the acquisition of the instant shares as a transaction between related parties and make the instant disposition.

(2) The Defendant’s disposition of this case, which calculated the market price of the shares of this case based on the supplementary assessment method, was unlawful, in that the shares of this case No. 8 were traded at KRW 15,000 during the period of 1-2 years before or after the date of purchase of the shares of this case, even though the legitimate market price of the shares of this case was KRW 15,00,000

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Scope of the specially related persons under Article 35 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

(A) Article 35(1)1 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that where a person having a special relationship takes over an asset at a price lower than the market price, the transferee of the asset shall be deemed a donee and shall be deemed to have been donated an amount equivalent to a certain benefit. Paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that the scope of a person having a special relationship as provided in subparagraphs 1 and 2 of paragraph (1), a lower price, and a higher price shall be prescribed by the Presidential Decree. In accordance with delegation under Article 35(2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, Article 26(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that “a person having a special relationship as provided in Article 35(1)1 and 2 of the same Act shall be deemed to have a relationship as provided in Article 19(2)1, 2, and 4 through 8, and that a person who has a special relationship as provided in Article 19(2)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act shall be deemed to have been an employee at the same time.

(B) As to this, Article 4 of the Enforcement Rule of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance No. 208, Apr. 30, 2008) provides that "an employee, a commercial employee, or any other person in an employment contract" shall be an employee as provided in Article 19 (2) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. Article 13 (6) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "an employee, other than commercial employee, who is in an employment contract, shall not be deemed an employee as provided in Article 16 (4) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act." Article 4 of the Enforcement Rule of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "an employee, other than a person with a special relationship, who maintains his livelihood with an employee as provided in the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy." Article 13 (6) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "an employee and a person with a special relationship with an employee shall not be deemed an employee."

(2) The reference date for determining whether the person is a specially related person

Article 23(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides for the time of acquisition of the ordinary donated property. However, with respect to a low-price transfer under Article 35 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, it does not clearly stipulate the time of low-price transfer under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and its Enforcement Decree. Meanwhile, with respect to the date of liquidation of the price and the market price under Article 26(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the date stipulated in each subparagraph shall be the date of liquidation of the price of the relevant property in principle. In cases falling under Article 162(1)1 through 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, the date stipulated in each subparagraph shall be the base date for calculation, and if it is deemed unreasonable to base the date of calculation due to sudden change in exchange rates after the purchase and sale, Article 162(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that the date of registration, receipt or transfer stated on the register, etc. before the settlement of price falls under Article 262(5).

(3) Determination in the instant case

On April 25, 2003, the Plaintiff paid the down payment of KRW 30,00,000 on the date of the contract with the GyeyangCC, and KRW 240,000,000 on May 7, 2003, and agreed to acquire the instant shares, but as a condition of transfer, the transferor shall transfer the instant shares to the assignee on the date of the balance receipt (e.g., May 7, 2003) of this contract. The Plaintiff entered into a contract for acquisition of the instant shares (No. 1) by stipulating that “The Plaintiff shall transfer the ownership of the instant shares to the assignee on the date of the transfer of the shares (e.g., the certificate), and the fact that the Plaintiff was appointed as the director of the instant company on May 31, 2003 is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s sale of the instant shares constitutes the Plaintiff’s comprehensive sale of shares, and thus, the Plaintiff did not constitute the Plaintiff’s act of sale and purchase of the instant shares, even if it did not constitute the Plaintiff’s agent’s title.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.